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.
Originally posted by ReadilyUnavailable
I love how people love to say "that doesn't look like the nose of an airliner to me", yet they completely ignore what the building looks like in the film.
If I showed you the left hand side of that film, would you be able to tell me what building it was at random...no
The video makes it all look like crap. You have to remember that the camera and / or encoding process have a set number of pixels that they fill in with information. security camera's and low bit encoding don't always get it right. It this resolution it is simply impossible to make proper analysis of scale, exact shape, etc.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Hey! I've been meaning to get back with you on the size issues. It's true that by the official distance and angle, the plane seems to look too big.
1) Sloppily doctored video - possible.
2) A different flight path, say to the north... that gets it closer to the Pentagon. Also possible. I'm instictively opposed but keeping an open mind.
3) Something else, like light glare making it LOOK bigger.
I guess I meant to get back after I'd one more research and I still haven't. but these pics and Qs give me a good basis. Soooo I'll be back.
Originally posted by ReadilyUnavailable
It this resolution it is simply impossible to make proper analysis of scale, exact shape, etc.
Originally posted by Frakkerface
I would eat my hat if there was better proof that it wasn't, Im opened minded with this subject, it makes no difference to me if it was a plane, missile or ufo.
If im not mistaken its the US government who put this video out as proof that an airliner hit, surely your point would be better directed towards them?
Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP
I really do enjoy the analysis that everyone is doing with these videos, but the fact of the matter still stands. The government has over eighty-five recordings of the Pentagon on that day - some of which Jack Tripper has proven to be from cameras on the Pentagon lawn - and how many have we seen? Two? Three?
There have been numerous attempts to obtain all the recordings, but the plaintiffs in the cases have been denied time and time again. If there is nothing to hide - or nothing to show for that matter - make these tapes public.
Source
Originally posted by nick7261
What's interesting is that this same disproportionate imaging might be in 4 different pieces of evidence:
1) Pentagon vid 1
2) Pentagon vid 2
3) Doubletree vid (if white thing is supposed to be plane wing), and
4) Smoke plume photographed at flight 93 crash site
How about this for irony... think about this scenario...
What if the original videos accurately show *nothing* hitting the Pentagon? I.e., what if the plane was so small and moving so fast that it *looked* like a missile, if it was even visible at all?
Then the geniuses in the government panic, thinking they can't release something that doesn't show the 757, so they decide to enhance the video a little bit. But they're stuck because if they make the plane the right size, nobody would see it. So they fudge the size so people can actually see a plane.
I just follow the evidence and the witness descriptions and see where they lead. If the NTSB video animation of the flight path is accurate, then Flight 77 (or a plane that's supposed to be Flight 77) came in from the north of the Citgo. This means that the light poles were knocked over by something that wasn't the same thing represented by the NTSB video.
Which means there's a whole lot more to the Pentagon story -like two planes.
I don't know enough about digital imaging, etc., to even comment on what else could make something look bigger. But here's what I find REALLY odd...
If something is moving 400 mpg, give or take, you would think there would be a blur along the axis of movement. So how does Pentagon Vid 1 show what looks like a perfect shape of the vertical tail fin?
That said, maybe the fuselage looks bigger in the 2nd video because it has a slightly downward path, causing vertical blurring, or glare like you said. But the frame capture doesn't seem to show any horizontal blurring, which you would expect significantly more of since the plane was moving 400 mpg horizontally.
I'm curious about your thoughts on this because you've done so much research already. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think.
I'm still waiting for the NIST to get back to me on the whole WTC7 thing, so take your time.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
- At the angle they say, it has a length of 100 feet plus, so a 757 fits length-wide. So how does a height/width comparison hold up?
So about 7:1. Lets say its a nealry full 757, 140 feet - yeah, that 20 feet "high," or 20 feet of fuselage and banked wings/engines. Say its only 100 feet. that gives us about 14 feet. So this all seems in the range of reason and I see no good reason to see this as off from the official story.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
JTMA: How could Hani Hanjour be the pilot: here's a nightmare scenario to consider:
Hanjour is an ace pilot, Saudi Air Force trained, special American tutoring, all fighter and commercial models, a real prodigy, an arab Luke Skywalker. He comes here and takes a few classes, acts dumb. The gov. someho fails to clarify this to us. Oops. We go off about how it's impossible he piloted, there's no evidence of a 757, must be a missile, inside job. THEN the files come out. Oh by the way...
[edit on 21-2-2007 by Caustic Logic]
Originally posted by nick7261
However, that still leaves as a mystery what the black think that looks like a tail fin is to the left of square 1??? This is the only frame this object is in. CatHerder and almost everbody else think it might be the plane.
This still isn't making sense to me... something doesn't seem right about the pic.
[edit on 22-2-2007 by nick7261]