It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Video Closeups

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
R7N

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   




These two screen shots are zoomed in and directly downloaded from: www.judicialwatch.org... (very bottom of the page).

The best way to compare what enters the camera between these two frames is to: save them both to your computer and flip between them rapidly to see what pixels change.

After many, many hours of watching, analyzing, and zooming on this video; I do not see, how anyone could possibly - logically deduct that the following animation is the least bit accurate.



Here's why:



1. The pixels to the left of #1 lighten up, the pixels below it darken. Why? There is some kind of object hidden behind the box, the pixels darkening could possibly be from the object being brighter than the grass and making the grass below it appear darker than the previous scene. This could be nothing, or this could be the nose of the airplane. NOTE: to the left of #1 the trees are clearly visible as in the scene before, though acording to the animation above the fuselage should be visible.

2. The pixels directly above #2 remain dark green. They do NOT change to a silvery gray, or any shade of gray. NOTE: The tree line above #2, is also in the previous frame - which means either: the person who made the animation used the treeline for part of the wing or the wing of the plane perfectly fit to replace the treeline exactly.

3. This is only to point out the approximate location of where the nose would be if the above animation was correct. Watch this area when flipping between the 2 scenes.

4. The vertical stabilizer in this image appears to be a right triangle (or close to it). The smoke is on the far side of the craft, otherwise the view of the tail fuselage wouldn't be visible. The lettering on the stabilizer appears to be black (this could be from poor video quality).

en.wikipedia.org...:AA757.JPG

Picture of an AA 757 ^^^ NOTE: Bright red lettering on the front of the fuselage, angled vertical stabilizer (looks like a parallelogram - not a triangle).

About the smoking engine... This is what happens when a bird get sucked into an engine:

jeremy.zawodny.com...

How on earth could an engine hit 1 or even 2 light poles, and keep flying - especially if it hit hard enough to make the engine smoke so much? Why would the right engine smoke and not the left?

My VERY APPROXIMATE guess at trajectory, and other things would put the left side/wing hitting 3 light poles and the right 2. And yes, please forgive my hideously drawn 757, I'm anything but an artist (the length is close to being correct the width of the fuselage is probably WAY off - as I couldn't find measurements for it)



I am always looking for high quality video of the Pentagon 757 - if you know of any that are of higher quality or where I can pay for a DVD of the original, please contact me: raven7night@yahoo.com


[edit on 6-7-2006 by R7N]




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
It's times like this you wish you had Archie from CSI with his magic crisp zooming software!

Security cameras aren't that good as far as quality goes, so you'll peobably never get a crisp clear image. Blowing it up with conventional software will only make the image worse.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Take a look at this video:

Case Study: Flight 77

It makes a good case for what a 757 might look like when you photograph it from 700-800 feet away through a fish-eye lens.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I don't know if anyone ever mentioned this. But by looking at the shadows, and knowing that it is 700-800 feet away from the camera, wouldn't that make it obvious that it was NOT a missile? What missle is large enough to cast a shadow that big?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
Take a look at this video:

Case Study: Flight 77

It makes a good case for what a 757 might look like when you photograph it from 700-800 feet away through a fish-eye lens.


I'd say that pretty much does it for me on this subject. I work with the modeling software used to create that video every day. I know the accuracy that it is capable of.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

It makes a good case for what a 757 might look like when you photograph it from 700-800 feet away through a fish-eye lens.



I concur with that, but there's still three things that are questionable to me.

1. Why didn't they find any big aircraft wreckage parts, such as the engines, the cockpit, tale sections, etc.? The maximum temperature of kerosene is 1120 degrees Celsius. However, - according to the government officials - the entire aircraft had been vaporized by the kerosene of the aircraft. How would this be possible, when titanium only melts on a minimum temperature of 1680 degrees Celsius, while the temperature of the kerosene was 1120 degrees Celsius max. In addition, how did they successfully identify the bodies of the victims, while the engines were vaporized? Since when is skin tougher than titanium?

2 .According to the flight instructor, the flight 77 ''terrorist pilot'' was barely able to pilot a one engine aircraft. But let's assume he has been able to pilot the aircraft towards the Pentagon, how has he been able to manoeuvre such a big airliner, without any experience on such a low altitude (less than one meter off the ground?), without sliding on the lawn in front of the walls. Manoeuvring such a big aircraft just above the ground is a really difficult and requires a lot of experience.

3. The camera issue, if the government has nothing to hide, then why don't they release the tapes of the gas station, the public traffic dept, and the Sheraton Hotel?
It would be the perfect proof to convince all conspiracy theorists about the fact a plane hit the Pentagon rather than a cruise missile.

Which brings us automatically to the following question: was it really the terrorist the government wants us to believe, that piloted the 77 flight?





[edit on 6-7-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
ad 1) I haven't seen the vaporisation claim. What I have seen are pictures of engine parts, undercarriage parts and ripped aluminium from the Pentagon wreckage and Pentagon lawn. And to identify using DNA you don't need that much.

ad 2) In normal pilot training one of the most important points are two most critical things - takeoff and landing. Those guys knew they don't need to take off the plane or to land it so what? Don't forget some of them have been training on the proffessional simulator. and piloting the 757 with its hydraulic steering and computers might well be easier than piloting manually a Cessna ;o)

ad 3) Maybe the FBI isn't interested in bunch of guys on ATS, half of whom won't believe the tapes anyway? Maybe there's too much "release it" shouting and in the same time no FOIA release demand?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Why didn't they find any big aircraft wreckage parts, such as the engines, the cockpit, tale sections, etc.?


Because at the speed that the plane was going, the big pieces became little pieces. How hard is that to understand?



Originally posted by Mdv2
The maximum temperature of kerosene is 1120 degrees Celsius.


No, not really. You don’t understand thermodynamics, do you?


Originally posted by Mdv2
However, - according to the government officials - the entire aircraft had been vaporized by the kerosene of the aircraft.


Please provide a source for the “government official” that made this claim.


Originally posted by Mdv2
How would this be possible, when titanium only melts on a minimum temperature of 1680 degrees Celsius, while the temperature of the kerosene was 1120 degrees Celsius max


What parts were made out of titanium and what parts were made out of high strength aluminum alloy?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
@R7N:

if you are looking for a difference pic:


Originally posted by g210
I finnaly created 2 difference Pics.
Might be of interest for the one or the other.





The Difference pic (far right) is created as the left Image minus the middle Image + a neutral OffsetValue (grey (127,127,127))

Resulting color components values above 255 are cutted on 255 and below 0 cutted to 0.

As source I took the ignoranceisnotbliss's 4 jpgs (that's why you see jpgs artifacts also).

[edit on 27-5-2006 by g210]


original posted in:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


BPI

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
When you look at the pictures, you see the roof line of the pentagon has a large gap in it prior to the jet hitting it. Has anyone given an explanation of this? Or can anyone explain this? It looks as though the roofline has already collapsed.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Almost ALL of the 757 was made out of aluminum, graphite, or some other composite material. The engine parts, and a very few internal structures were made of titanium.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
sorry to say that but i will always question the inteligence of ppl thinking a 757 hit the pent.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I've always been questioning the intelligence of people screaming it was a Global Hawk, or an A-3, or a Tomahawk, so I guess we're even. heh.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by eagle eye
sorry to say that but i will always question the inteligence of ppl thinking a 757 hit the pent.


You may question my intelligence all you want, where is some proof it wasn't 757? Or may we question intelligence of those questioning intelligence of people who think something else?



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
BPI: Isn't the "gap" caused by a building standing behind the Pentagon? My bet is that yes



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by vor75
Take a look at this video:

Case Study: Flight 77

It makes a good case for what a 757 might look like when you photograph it from 700-800 feet away through a fish-eye lens.

I'd say that pretty much does it for me on this subject. I work with the modeling software used to create that video every day. I know the accuracy that it is capable of.


Yeah, looks like a nice peace of software to me. But when used the wrong way it leads to wrong conclusion.

Contrary to what they have hoped the video proves pritty strong that there is no 757!




You can check self in the video where they switch from the real picture to the model (2:30) that they made a mismatch in the plane position. (also note how the shape of the tail changes..has nothing of a 757)
www.youtube.com...

I only corrected the plane position and corrected the end of the yellow box which is incorrect modelled compared with the original video stills. And you see that it sticks out far enough that you had to see it in the difference pic. (created new once from the original unmodefied videos) Yet there is nothing.
Also note that the correction of the position if we do it even more correct also would mean a little incresement of the plane size because it is closer to the camera.

It looks to me that they tried every trick to match that thing behind the box.

At the end it is a joke anyway because they forgoet camera2, which shows no plane at all.

byway the fisheye they used looks also not to be that correct matched with the real thing. Check the horizont.


[edit on 9-7-2006 by g210]

[edit: image size]
Mod Note: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/9/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Why do you leave out the massive amount of heat generated by kinnetic energy released by a stop of about 30G forces?Not to mention the pic of the generator,that was clipped.Notice your ever wanted "cookie cut out" engine on the left,even furhter left corner of remaining fence.Oh' yea the generator was tweeeeaked.Not to mention all the light poles.Ggeeezzee.do you guys look at any evidence,or check one fact.
Good Day.
D.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   


sorry to say that but i will always question the inteligence of ppl thinking a 757 hit the pent.


Sorry to say, but I will always question the intelligence of people who cannot correctly spell or use punctuation.

Another day, another stupid theory from he 9/11 crowd.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
For me

killtown.911review.org...

is a site that asks all the right questions and provides the most useful information without the bullcrap on 9/11, and I followed this link from another ATS member, it is comprehensive and thought provoking and well researched, James Feltzer has also recommended this site, I would recommend that everyone at least browses it, and I have no affiliation with the site whatsoever, I am just looking for the truth like everyone else.
Im sure it's been mentioned before so apologies if it has.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Ya I would like to see some of those answers myself.

Also, If you haven't noticed, these images are the dame images that were released soon after..

I dont know what the big thing is about these images. Its not like its anything new. Why dont they release the other 6800+ videos and 6900+ images of 9/11?? What are they hiding, what are we missing??

Also what was under that blue tarp that it took like 8 people to carry???

Questions on Killtowns site would be a good place for you 9/11 people to start answering...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join