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.

 

Flight 77's Shadow?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrapple
...dark patch suggestions?

Keeping it simple with raw materials,
Here are the beginnings of a 'single-engine' Cessna attack run…




(Bottom capture) at about 4:17/5:20 on YouTube player,
Google search “Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon CITGO Video”


Good, good. You have a time stamp for that frame? I'd like to see the frames before and after that "Cessna shadow." Does it move down te length of the road at like 30-60 mph like the other 'shadows' driving to and from work? 'Cause, see, these two dots share the peculiar characteristic of bliking in an out in a single .333 second frame. See my post above for the full explanation why the shadow ain't a car and a car ain't a shadow.

Two totally different classes of dark, ill-defined patches. It only becomes clear when you watch the video, not just compare stills.
video - watch it
The shadow is at 4:42. Note how quick it is. Then watch the cars.

ETA: just saw the time you cited, oops. Yes, this is car you're looking at here, but the shadows I showed are not. Point attempted and failed.


[edit on 28-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]




posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by S.O.Blilbobby
where exactly is this guy going with these stupid shadows anyways. is this going to explian why some of the people were killed or is it just throwing another story out there for someone to grab hold of and take the story to a whole other level. so what there are shadows at a damn gas station. for every new story to come up with there will always be another skeptic to prove you wrong. sometimes the story is as simple as it came. but some would rather look for bull$hit to make up cuz they overlook the simple little facts presented at the time of the event.


I understand your frustration, I guess. But if you want to know where this is going, you could read the thread, Too much work? Alright then, quick summary:

My findings support 'the official story' in showing (possibly) a 757 on the right path and right altitude to hit the Pentagon as reported. It contradicts the popular (?) idea now that the plane flew north of the Citgo and had to have flown over.

Yet I'm still what you might call a 'truther.' Confusing, huh?

[edit on 28-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   
It's becoming apparent that nothing short of time machine full of perfect witnesses with HD video cameras will ever bring this controversy to an end.

Your finding here Caustic Logic is indeed more compelling evidence that what seems to have happened in fact did happen.

Many thanks for showing us another piece of the puzzle



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It's becoming apparent that nothing short of time machine full of perfect witnesses with HD video cameras will ever bring this controversy to an end.

Your finding here Caustic Logic is indeed more compelling evidence that what seems to have happened in fact did happen.

Many thanks for showing us another piece of the puzzle




Thank you Pilgrum. I'm really pretty excited that I was able to put this all together and it all fit so well. And yet despite how clear the evidence is, we see no real accusation of outright video forgery, which is the only plausible alternative to accepting a 757 on the official path. It really shouldn't be that hard, and of course this will now have to be said.

It won't be provable either way, but attempts may be made, and we'll be left with what the video as we have it shows.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I’m more inclined to believe this…..


www.youtube.com...

9/11 Ring of Power ¼



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Oh this is silly and an excercise in desperate futility.

Those "two dots" represent nothing more than two dots. You should actually watch the video, there are plenty of other "dots" in there. It could be nothing more than distortion in the video tape.

It is clearly evident that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo.

Robert Turcios, Chadwick Brooks, and Edward Paik would have seen a plane on that flight path, on that side of the Citgo gas station.

They did not.

1. They released the video a week after it was announced that Robert Turcios saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo (supporting the Lagasse contention from the Dick Eastman e-mail exchange)*AND* volunteered that the plane "picked up" over the highway into the ascent he describes on video. Five years later (after much controversy) and they finally release the Citgo video a week after it is announced that a Citgo employee saw the plane on the north side and saw it PULL UP over the highway?? Come on.

2. The video is clearly altered. They removed the video frames that contained the plane entering from the north side/explosion and the camera that captured it. They then release the video without the frames or mention of the camera and pretend that, to the best of their ability, it has satisfied the public's request to see the impact. This makes the video inadmissable as evidence OF ANYTHING and highly suspect.

3. Multiple witnesses describe a bank-which is required in the north side approach. Steve Ross' website and second hand account describe the north side approach. Many accounts describe the plane coming OVER the Navy Annex, which would be the north side approach. The witnesses in the PentaCon, casually and then admantly state that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. Published witness Levi Stephens tells CIT it was on the north side of the Citgo. How much more evidence do you need?

Certain things edited out and dots and flashes added? That certainly looks and could be the case, since the north side approach was and is now being revealed. But the dots are beyond inconclusive, and frankly just silly if accepted as evidence of the plane being on the south side of the Citgo

To accept this "video evidence" as authentic would be absolutely absurd.

And I am sorry, but there is no way a 757 did this:





[edit on 28-10-2007 by Slick Tic]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   
AND...

The "dots" DO NOT correspond with the flash and light reflection on the south side canopy that Russell Pickering tries to attribute to the plane being on the south side.

Count the seconds after the "two dots" and in between when the reflections are seen and you have a problem in yours and JF's theory, CL.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Quick question, CL.

Does the road upon which the shadows are cast (South Joyce Street???) have a central reservation? In other words, are opposite flowing carriageways seperated by some sort of crash barrier?

If so, it explains the two shadows perfectly.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
i wonder if the guy who started this thread saw the special on the history channel about the plane flying into the pentagon. the story showed both sides of the story(meaning it coudnt been a plane and it could of) it seemed to satisfy me especially when the have experts saying there could of been no bomb or missle that caused this kind of damage. so that roles out all comspiracys. its the micheal moores of today who dont want to believe the simple truth. not saying our government it truthful but numerous experts have found small pieces of the plane far into the building. so to me it doesnt matter what a shadow or servailance tape shows. maybe the damn plane flew a circle before it hit the pentagon who knows. maybe you cant always count on eye witnesses. its not like you solving a crime that has been already looked at in a hundred different ways. why couldnt that 757 not have caused that damage? whats so hard to believe. i believe in E.T's , i believe the government has flying saucers but i dont believe anything that happened on 9/11 is anything more than terrorist who pulled off a huge masacre on inoccent americans. r there really people out there that think our own govermnt would attack its own people to engage in a endless war thats going nowhere but wasting our tax dollars?

[edit on 28-10-2007 by S.O.Blilbobby]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by S.O.Blilbobby
 


I think you have completely misinterpreted the thrust of the OP's argument here.

He is arguing the case that a commercial aircraft DID hit the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by S.O.Blilbobby
 



...a[n]endless war thats going nowhere but wasting our tax dollars?


I don't think you could be further from the truth.

Sure, US citizens' tax dollars are funding this never-ending war. But they're not being 'wasted'.

Look at where those tax dollars go.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Alright, so we have that cameras were removed after 9/11, and the accusation that these views were functional and recording on that morning. Sorry, I'm still hazy on the details and level of evidence. But if true, this would imply that the actual multiplexed recording was later edited to remove frames that had been recorded, right? Did they actually re-digitize the videotape and rearrange the frames ala the Brady Bunch?


Perhaps.

Obviously it is impossible to prove exactly how and all they did to manipulate it. But it doesn't matter because it has been proven to be manipulated making it invalid evidence.

Even if it hadn't been proven to be manipulated it is not logical to accept evidence controlled and provided for by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's story in any investigation.

But since we KNOW it has been manipulated the suspect has actually implicated themselves in a direct cover-up.

This is only done when there is something to hide and the only relevant point to be brought up about this invalid evidence.




We know this because the manager of the citgo TOLD US that the views were online.


Okay, that's fairly good evidence. I'm certainly not going to actively argue this at this point, let's go on the presumption that the overall video was manipulated to remove key frames.


Ok good. Smart thinking and finally a logical, scientific way to approach the discussion. We must only discuss this in full context of the fact that this is invalid evidence that further implicates the suspect in question.




However, what I'm wondering is, was anything manipulated within this frame?


Do you believe these dots were really there, or inserted? THAT is the question you'll need to answer.


Huh?

Man that was a quick reversal!

If you go on the "presumption that the overall video was manipulated to remove key frames" then the evidence has been rendered invalid and further implicates the suspect.

Therefore to suggest that I "need" to answer a question regarding all the ways this invalid evidence was manipulated even though that is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to answer this question anyway simply makes no sense.

Evidence tampering is a federal offense and in this case it further implicates a cover-up which only supports the contentions of CIT.

It certainly does not support the contention that a 757 was exactly where the suspect says it was.





This "analysis" from CL is yet another neutralization attempt.

The alleged "shadow" in question is 2 dots.

A shadow of a massive 757 would be continuous.

To suggest that these 2 dots come from a jet strains credulity beyond belief.


I hope your arguments get better than this. So you're attempting to neutralize my neutralization by pointing out that continuous objects leave solid shadows. In real life, yes, in low quality video, at oblique angles, with surface issues, I don't think we can presume that we'd see the whole shadow. Do you understand that the engines and fuselage would cast their own portions of shadow forward the wing edge?

I do admit this is the tricky part - how does the rest of the shadow from there back not come through?

And then you cap with an argument from incredulity. I know how you love those when others employ them.

Alright, next...




You already said that you are going on the presumption that the evidence had been tampered with which means it's invalid.

That is quite far from an argument from incredulity.

It would be counter-productive and quite silly to focus in on inconclusive anomalous dots in invalid data that only implicate the suspect.

Especially when your contention is that these dots in this invalid data support the suspect's story.

Legitimate investigators are always looking at the full puzzle when they try to fit the pieces.

They don't take pieces from a completely different puzzle and then cut them up and try to force them into the picture.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine


Is it possible to add three panels (representing the 'missing' camera angles) of any size or combination of sizes to what we already have and retain a rectangular field of view?

If not, is it your view that the FBI not only removed the 'missing' camera views but also rearranged the panels on the screen?


I have no idea of exactly all they did to manipulate this data and this would be impossible to figure out.

But luckily we don't need to because we have already proven the data has been manipulated which only further implicates the suspect.





The dots prove nothing whether or not they were edited in.

I agree they 'prove' nothing, but if they're genuine, they raise some interesting questions.


If genuine?

The data has been proven to be manipulated by the suspect.

Therefore we can not accept anything that allegedly supports the suspect's story from this data.

That would be illogical and counter-productive to determining the truth and seeing to it that the suspect is indicted.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by coughymachine
 


The multiplex feed sends all camera views to the same screen.

No data controlled and provided for by the suspect is valid evidence in defense of the suspect but the notion that this data has been proven to be manipulated it becomes doubly invalid.

The dots prove nothing whether or not they were edited in.


Okay, there we go. True, it PROVES nothing, but you're the proof guy whereas I'm the evidence guy. There is a big distinction - if it's edited in, we have proof of official deception and a strong case that they did this beause the plane was NOT on the south path. If the shadow is real, it is strong evidence for a south path, as it fits for size, possibly orientation, and gives the right altitude and speed. It matches the FDR and the damage path.

So the shadow was inserted right?


Looking at invalid evidence out of context of all the other evidence is not a proper way to go about an investigation.

If that means I am the "proof guy" it means you are the "illogical purposefully confusing guy".

Here is what you are doing.....

Admitting the evidence is invalid yet deciding to cast aside this CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FACT in favor of insisting that all inconclusive details that might possibly be construed to support the official story in this invalid data must be focused on and thoroughly explained. (even though this is impossible anyway)

The entire premise of this line of questioning is false and counter to the entire purpose of investigating 9/11 evidence to begin with.

It is impossible to prove exactly all that was manipulated but the fact that this evidence has been tampered with already implicates the suspect.

Yet you are literally using this thread to convince readers that this invalid evidence supports the suspect even under the "presumption" that I am correct in this notion!











Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by coughymachine
 


The data is invalid particularly in an investigation against the suspect in question who controlled and manipulated this data.

The notion that ONLY the critical views of the Pentagon and plane were removed implicates the controllers of this data in direct manipulation of the evidence during a deliberate cover-up of the event.


Well it would seem they missed one critical view, Craig. Tell me, if they can insert this shadow, why bother removing views at all? Would they even need to alter, say, a view pointed right at the Pgon capturing the aparent impact that fooled all eyewitnesses? You think this crappy camera view would prove a flyover any better than the real deal did? So why remove these but leave in th one where the shadow would have to be inserted?


The removed camera and view in question would have surely shown a plane on the north side.

But it's not my responsibility to say why they did what they did.

The evidence is what it is and it implicates the government in a military deception on 9/11.

There is no way around it no matter how hard you try to spin the invalid data they provide to protect them.










Now it's time for me to enjoy the Halloween weekend in Vegas!


Uh-oh, now he might acuse me of knowing that and dropping this bomb when he's not here to defend as I attempt to neutralize their info.

Tell ya what then, let's keep the insertion issue open-ended for now and just look at what the video as we have it shows. If the shadow is edited in, what were they trying to make appear? Why is it two dots? Did they just do it wrong? Like the foundation, and the pole placement, and Lloyd, and etc.?


edit to add second quote and responses



Oh come on....you certainly haven't dropped any "bombs" and there is no reason you shouldn't have replied while I was in Vegas. I was simply letting you know that I wouldn't be responding for a couple days.

It is not my responsibility to explain why proven invalid data shows inconclusive anomalous dots that you are able to spin to support their story.

"They" have never even acknowledged the dots or ANY details about this data.

It was quietly released within a week after we announced Robert Turcios' account and never officially addressed at all.

The entire purpose of the dots in this invalid data could simply be to give fodder for guys like you to further sow confusion and neutralize the info.

It was likely meant to be inconclusive and anomalous so they would never have to address it direct.

But it sure doesn't stop you!



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I think this argument is rediculous. SOMETHING hit the pentagon, but did you see the hole? Did anyone bother to look at pictures of the hole? An airliner can't even fit into a 40 foot wide hole, let alone less than 20 feet wide. I don't even think a Cessna could do that. I'm no expert, again, but umm I know that wings don't mysteriously disappear miloseconds before impact.
This is getting old. Just use your friggin eyes.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
And dude obviously, in this case, the witnesses saying they saw an airliner hit the pentagon are planted witnesses, because an airliner does not fit into the hole. A cessna, even, like I said. I gotta stop going into 9/11 threads because it's just rediculous that people can't plainly see, that they have to hide behind all this jargon that complicates everything.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
You see this is EXACTLY why Aldo and I get frustrated with the "movement".

Russell Pickering should have freaked out when this video was released and used all of his connections to get people to realize how incredibly important it is that the government released data that we KNOW was manipulated and can prove it with simple testimony from the Citgo manager.

This is HUGE!

But instead it's ignored and used by Russell, John Farmer, Caustic Logic, and even Dylan Avery to support the government story!

This is how bad some people out there want CIT to be wrong and the official story to be right.

CIT will continue to scream loud about this and all evidence that proves a 9/11 military deception and cover-up but it does no good falling on deaf ears.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
As a member of the US Military, im sick and tired of being slandered by people like the CIT and their insane theories about how we were responsible for 9/11. They have no CLUE about who we are and what we believe, because if you think that ANYONE in the US military would do something so heinous as crash airliners filled with US citizens into buildings filled with the same, you need to get your flipping head examined.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   


I think this argument is rediculous. SOMETHING hit the pentagon, but did you see the hole? Did anyone bother to look at pictures of the hole? An airliner can't even fit into a 40 foot wide hole, let alone less than 20 feet wide. I don't even think a Cessna could do that. I'm no expert, again, but umm I know that wings don't mysteriously disappear miloseconds before impact.


Did YOU bother to look? The "hole" as you call it, stretched for almost 90 feet when measured from left wing impact point to right wing impact point. The wings didnt "disappear" they left pieces all over the flipping place. I see you also think that the witnesses who reported seeing an airliner were "planted" So the minister conducting a funeral at Arlington was planted, the people driving their cars on the highway were planted, the people in the buildings around the Pentagon were planted, the people IN the Pentagon were planted, the remains of the people witnessed to have boarded Flight 77 were planted and most tellingly, THE PIECES OF THE AIRLINER THAT WERE ALL OVER THE LAWN OF THE PENTAGON, IN THE PENTAGON, ON THE HIGHWAY AND ON THE GROUNDS OF ARLINGTON WERE ALL PLANTED???

Unfortunately, what I would like to suggest you do, is against the rules of the board, so I will refrain. But heres a clue, YOU open your eyes.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Sorry swampfox but just because you are a member of the military doesn't mean you are responsible for covert activity that is done with military resources.

I highly doubt they got your permission to cause 9/11.

BUT........the fact that they didn't bother to ask you does not change the evidence that our military resources were most definitely used.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join