CIT Witness Account + Security Video Potentially Prove Aircraft Strikes Pentagon AND NoC Theory

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Originally I started out with the intent to prove the smoke from the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was dispersed by the explosion based on image analysis alone since the OP didn't want to conduct a scaled phyiscal test and I still felt like playing Devil's Advocate.

I take some pretty harsh shots at 9/11 CTs so I want to put myself out there as well and afford myself the same level of peer review. I'd also like to use this as an example of how just resizing images and running them through Photoshop filters is not all there is to image analysis. I'd also like to use this as an opportunity to prove how if you allow hard evidence to back up eye witness accounts, the story tells itself and it may not be what you ever thought. This is in opposition to the popular notion of attempting to prove a theory by eye witness accounts alone and/or by including (or excluding for that matter) facts not in evidence or not born out by reproducable analysis.

I would also ask right now that any further discussion be kept on topic, scholarly, and most importantly... civil.

Now Open Your Mind.

What The Theory Is
------------------
Frame 1 of security camera 2 as leaked by the AP in 2002 does indeed show evidence of a aircraft about to strike the Pentagon while remaining consistent with the account of Robert Turcios and thereby supporting one eye witness account of the "North of CITGO" scenario.

To boil it down further: I have documentable evidence and one eye witness account that supports my conclusion.

What the Theory Is NOT
----------------------
I do NOT say this is a 757.
I do NOT say this is Flight 77.
I do NOT say this is a commerical aircraft.
I do NOT say that I cannot be 100% wrong.

The Account of Robert Turcios
-----------------------------

From "The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version (2/2/2007)"

@19:30 Robert gives his account...
@23:45 Robert says "I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was it headed straight to it, and uh, then the big explosion... the fireball and lots of smoke."

Ranke asks about him seeing the impact to which Robert responds:
"The view was obstructed, I could only see the fireball."

Robert Turcios said his view of the planet at impact was obstructed and could not see the impact. He said he saw the plane lift up "a little bit" (24:15).

The Turcios interview is actually the 2nd video interview offered on the video and was the best conducted interviews. The questions were open ended and Turcios was allowed to give his account without prompting or correction (ie Lagasse). Also unlike other witnesses (the Asian gentleman interviewed first in that video is another), after giving the initial position of the plane above the CITGO the position of the plane only changes by a few feet as he looks at the scenery and fine tunes his account.

Listen to the rest of Turcios's account. When asked about the plane flying over the Pentagon his voice changes notably to a tone of surprise and then replies "No, no I did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon". This is already after he has indicated that he was in the absolute perfect position to witness the plane at such a dramatic angle.

Unfortunately there was no tape measure around so without further evidence the account cannot be verified by Turcios' tale alone.

The Photo Analysis
------------------
Image source: 911research.wtc7.net...
Image Sample 1 (IS1) is said to be Security Camera 2, Frame 1.

Image Sample 2 (IS2) is said to be Security Camera 2, Frame 5.


Noticed in original images camera has moved or refocused inside housing between IS1 and IS2.



Problem: There is no image in this set that shows a non-obstructed view (no smoke and no aircraft) of the area behind the exit gate housing. This makes comparison against the original scene (no smoke and no aircraft) from this camera impossible and may cause confusion during analysis.

The following was performed on both IS1 and IS2:
Photoshop CS3 Smart Sharpen is applied to original images as released. Settings used: Amount 50%, Radius 5.0 pixels, Remove Motion Blur, Motion Blur Angle 3 degrees, Shadow Fade Amount 100%, Shadow Tonal Width 100%, Shadow Tonal Radius 5 pixels, Highlight Fade Amount 100%, Highlight Tonal Width 100%, Highlight Radius 5 pixel
* This is done to remove a portion of blur from moving objects in the frame.
Photoshop CS3 Smart Blur is applied. Settings used: Radius: 1.1 pixels, Threshhold: 29.2
* This is done to remove JPG artifacting and smoots artifacts created by motion blur removal.
Cropped section from 300,75 to 400,142 (X,Y)
Cropped image resized to 800x536 via Bicubic Smoother resample.


Note: the resizing isn't done until after all other image processing. This reduces unintentional artifacting. Odd sizing is to maintain image ratio and to further minimize artifacting.




Let's superimpose the images to see what changes just for fun.

Original images were cropped sections of full frames and do not line up when samples are superimposed due to camera shift.

i35.tinypic.com...
[Sorry, link only since I did not cycle the animations]

We'll need to fix it.

Superimposition keyed on:
* center of black spot on exit gate housing
* Top of cone furthest right of exit gate housing, Horizontal Only
* Left base of exit gate housing, Vertical Only
IS2 required shifting X-6 (moving left), Y+10 (moving down) to align with overlay based on above targets
Image cropped to 794x526 to remove excess from image alignment.


Problem: As a result of the camera shift, refocus, zoom... whatever... the angle of the image has also changed slightly. This may cause further confusion when analysing the frame due to artifacting. Redacting known objects will be required to assist in analysis.




Much better.



Note: IS2 is darker than IS1 due to the smoke blocking some of the sunlight.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]




posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
At this point we have something worth analyzing. We have documented all the steps taken to get to this point, including the commercial software used and the settings for the image processing done in each step. Anyone can take the originals that I used and get to this point 100% of the time. Anyone may then dispute the processing method on a very specific basis.

Now that that is all done, let's see what is in IS1 and not in IS2. First thing we notice is that there's definitely some ambient light based distortion in IS1. How do we determine it is ambient light distortion? The artifacting changes drastically when less light is available to the scene and distorted objects become well defined. This artifact is potentially caused by the focusing lense of low-resolution CCD cameras operating in high ambient light and is further magnified by JPG compression. Note the glare on the lense from the sun in the upper left in the source image of IS1. It's just the nature of the beast.



We'll have to be aware of that when we get further along in our journey. Please also note that this image also verifies our alignment process in that the distorted and non-distorted objects are still in alignment once the ambient light artifacts are removed. After a percentage of incoming light is blocked by the smoke of the explosion in IS2, the ambient light reaching the focusing lense of the CCD is lower allowing the true image to appear. We can somewhat discern which object is causing the light distortion by comparing the contour of the object and distortion in IS1 to the resolved true image in IS2.

Now we get to the good stuff.


Overlay cropped at 350,50:794,250
Cropped overlay resized to 800x360




Now that looks promising. Let's see if we can redact the exit gate housing based on IS2 so we can get a good idea of what's behind it in IS1. Since we know the area of the image we're going to be studying, let's also redact the some ground and sky to give us something to work with.



Let's take a look at just the smoke at the right hand side of the image.



Notice the blue line. That line indicates the bottom of the shadow of the smoke in IS2. Notice where that shadow is in IS1. This indicates that the oldest smoke available in the video has sank to the ground at this distance from the explosion. You can just about extrapolate the fluidic motion of the smoke between IS1 to IS2.

We can also tell that the shadow indicated is NOT the shadow of the plume from the explosion if we take those chop out the center of the image so those two shadows lay side by side. Blue line still indicates the bottom of the smoke shadow indicated in the image above.



Given that the smoke sinks to the ground, we may assume the particulate matter comprising that smoke is either heavier than air or does not posses the energy (heat) to become boyant. What kind of smoke is this?



There's one portion of the image that isn't easily reconciled, however it's quite possible to draw some possible conclusions with a little more effort. My first guess was that the weird artifact below was caused by a blending between the AA logo on the tail aircraft and the background of the image during processing or by the CCD camera.



We can rule out image processing by going back to the unprocessed IS1 and see if we can discern the artifact.



Due to the ambient light artifacting/JPG compression, the presence of the anomolous artifact in the original image, and its subsequent disappearance in IS2, it is my hypothesis that this object is attached to the aircraft. However, I will concede that this may not be true in that the edge of the building in the background just so happens to extend to the left as far as the anomolous artifact does, though they are at drastically different vertical positions. This could be an artifact created by the original image compression of the security camera hardware.

Given everything else we know up to this point, the untouched image itself tends to indicate the outline of an aircraft.



What about the redacted version we so lovingly processed before? I'll let you answer the final question.



My conclusions are not only supported by the facts I have presented, but also the account of Robert Turcios (who did said that he specifically did NOT see a plane fly over the Pentagon) and the 9/11 Commission Report. Due to the fact my conclusion agrees with the account of Robert Turcios, this theory potentially reinforces the north side fly-over account.

PLEASE challenge my process, my conclusions, or the evidence I used to draw my conclusions, all of which are clearly stated.

Get the images. Know your tools. Do what I did or modify what I did to see if you can get better results. Document what you do. Draw your own conclusions. Post it all here.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I eagerly await your well considered slings and arrows.


I would also ask right now that any further discussion be kept on topic, scholarly, and most importantly... civil.

Edit: I have no agenda other than good science and investigation. I don't care if a plane did or did not hit the Pentagon or if the plane was or was not on the north side of the CITGO. Please keep that in mind when posting your response.

I'm going to take a little nap so please do not dismay if I do not immediately respond.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

posted by cogburn
Problem: There is no image in this set that shows a non-obstructed view (no smoke and no aircraft) of the area behind the exit gate housing. This makes comparison against the original scene (no smoke and no aircraft) from this camera impossible and may cause confusion during analysis.

Sure there is. You just grab them from the video which is supposedly where the original leaked frames came from. Hmmmm. I wonder if the leaked frames were done first and then the altered videos.

I will not bother placing the 32 hour date/time errors at the bottom. I do not understand why you people insist on cropping the right side out of these frames. Is it intentional?

An early frame


Two frames before the heavy white smoke trail







posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Nope, I see no 757 nor Tomahawk cruise missile nor Global Hawk nor A-3 Skywarrior nor any other aircraft/missile nor Romulan Cloaked Warbird anywhere in your sketches.

As I pointed out in another thread, the tail on your AA 757 is about 20 feet too short when compared to the height of the heavy white smoke trail which allegedly came out of the right wing engine which was officially about 2 feet off the lawn.

The gorgeous attributes of the heavy white smoke trail zoomed to 5000x3325 resolution. Isn't it amazing the ability of these Pentagon cameras to blur everything but heavy white smoke trails?



Let me post the after heavy white smoke trail video captures in sequence. I still see no 757 aircraft anywhere. In fact the only things I see are those fake looking explosions (especially the first bright white high explosive blast which is nothing like jet fuel exploding) and that beautiful heavy white smoke trail which is so cleverly drawn that it holds great detail even when zoomed 5X to a 5000x3325 resolution. Pretty good for an El Cheapo parking lot camera several hundred yards away; wouldn't you agree?



Impact - explosion and hanger/control tower look faked


Impact 2 - explosion and flames and hanger/control tower look faked


Impact 3 - flames, smoke, and hanger/control tower look real


Impact 4 - flames, smoke, and hanger/control tower look real


Impact 5 - flames, smoke, and hanger/control tower look real





[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I have three issues with what you posted.

#1 - you use different source images than I do. Furthermore your images suffer from additional degradation from YouTube video processing and subsequent streaming. As a result they are of inferior quality images to the ones I used.

#2 - The source of the 2006 images cannot be confirmed as from the exact same piece of equipment as the 2001 images. With CCD cameras, each one behaves slightly differently due to microscopic differences in the electron wells created during the process of manufacture. When you zoom to that level, the level of error in the CCD may create artifacting that cannot be reconciled. However if you can provide ORIGINAL SOURCE images from the 2006 release that are taken prior to the aircraft appearing in the frame I'd be more than happy to do the analysis while knowing my prior statements are true.

#3 - Your "zoom" is inaccurate because it is done with a resampling filter applied to the resized image. Photoshop does this by default. What resampling filter did you use? For these untouched images, resampling using nearest neighbor yields results much closer to the source image than the method you applied.

I asked that you please know your tools when you use them to produce items you wish to use to refute my theory.

Edit: Even though your images are of lesser quality than the ones I used, I invite you to use your images and follow the exact same steps I used and post your results.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
If you accept the account of Robert Turcios you must accept that the plane did not hit the building.

Why?

Because all physical damage is 100% irreconcilable with the north side approach.

This includes the light poles, generator trailer and all damage to the building.

If you accept the north side approach and an impact the burden is on you do explain how the observable and reported physical damage was caused because as it stands, not a single pilot, engineer, physicist, scholar, or even average layperson/skeptic of CIT who is willing to sign their name to their claims is willing to admit that a north side approach is in any way whatsoever reconcilable with an impact.

Please explain and demonstrate how this directional damage was caused by a plane on the north side.

Good luck!

Light poles:


Generator trailer:





Purely directional damage to the building ending with odd round C ring hole:





Oh and don't forget, Robert Turcios saw the plane "pull-up":




It has already been determined that the g forces required for the plane to even pull up to be low and level as shown in the security video are impossible due to the descent required because of the topography and obstacles:



Google Video Link



Sorry man but facts, science, and evidence trump spin, lies, and strange emotional knee-jerk obsessions.

The burden is on you.

Do what NONE of our detractors have even dared attempt to do since the release of The PentaCon over 2 years ago.

Demonstrate how a north side approach is at all reconcilable with all known physical damage.





posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I'm sorry but your statements are not applicable to my theory as posed.

Here's why:

I do not address the light poles within my analysis as they may have been caused by an event other than the aircraft that struck the building. You have accepted this possibility yourself in this post.





Ex #1- Men in suits at 9:45am appearing from all sides on a major traffic artery that cuts around the Pentagon in Washington D.C. is not de facto proof they are "agents" or even suspicious. Judging from the immediate area (Navy Annex, Pentagon, Arlington Cemetery), there's a high probability they are all government, if not military, employees or contractors. Why don't they come forward? It's not impossible to think that some people don't want folks like us harassing them for testimony for the rest of their lives. The only difference between Lloyd England and the others is car damage. Lloyd would then be the "oddity" in respect to everyone else witnessed on the bridge.


So?

How does this change the fact that we provide evidence proving the plane was on the north side nowhere near the poles?

I will concede that the suits in the image could very well be completely innocent.

But they remain suspects who are implicated merely by photographic evidence showing direct association with this proven staged scene.

This is all we have ever claimed when considering them and we stand by it.


Furthermore, formulating a probable theory as to what damaged the light poles requires a completely different line of investigation. If, in the end, that investigation yields no other probable cause other than a plane striking the poles I will be forced to recant my statement, but not until then. For that matter, you will have a lot of explaining to do yourself.

There is no evidence from either Trucios' testimony nor the video frames provided that any damage to the interior of the Pentagon was caused by the impact of the aircraft. I can very easily assert that the internal damage was caused by planted explosives. However it is outside the scope of my theory and outside the scope of this thread.

If you would like to postulate how that damage was caused and provide evidence for such a theory, please start a new thread and I will be happy to contribute. Same goes for the light poles.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Oh... as to the g-forces involved...

If you can prove exactly what type of aircraft it was and a valid estimate for its weight at the time given fuel consumption and passenger load I would be happy to debate that in another thread as well.

Otherwise no g-force calculations may be applied.

EDIT: As to the Trucios' "pull up" or "a little bit" please provide the video you are referencing and the timestamp at which the statement was made.

We can address how to determine exactly what angle Mr Trucios' remembers it to have pulled up at if you like, however it would require another afternoon with Mr. Trucios.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

posted by cogburn
I have three issues with what you posted.

#1 - you use different source images than I do. Furthermore your images suffer from additional degradation from YouTube video processing and subsequent streaming. As a result they are of inferior quality images to the ones I used.

And you prefer to cut off the right side of the images.


posted by cogburn
#2 - The source of the 2006 images cannot be confirmed as from the exact same piece of equipment as the 2001 images.

What exactly are you alleging? There were four cameras videotaping the event? Assuming everything was not just manufactured from scratch, where else would the frames be from except the original videos or copies of those original videos? Of course the 2002 frames and the 2006 videos were doctored because nothing hit the Pentagon and the actual aircraft was to the north and at a higher altitude. Perhaps these videos and still frames were doctored specifically to remove an aircraft flying across neared to the cameras and much higher above the lawn. So they doctored two frames to remove the aircraft and removed a few more frames. Works for me.


posted by cogburn
#3 - Your "zoom" is inaccurate .

I don't need a zoom to prove you wrong. I will just use your image with the right side cut off.



A 757 aircraft wing hung engine sits about 3 feet off the ground when sitting on its landing gear and the center of that engine is about 7 feet off the ground. At the same time, the top of the tail stabilizer sits 44 feet 6 inches off the ground. According to the official Pentagon Building Performance Report, the aircraft flew level across the lawn in the video and about 1 ft 11 inches above the ground. (top of fuselage 20 feet above ground which would put bottom of engines at level flight 1 foot 11 inches above ground level)



Assuming the heavy white smoke trail in the Frame One (plane) still is coming out of the right wing engine, then the tail of the alleged 757 should be sticking up about 31 feet above the top edge of the heavy white smoke trail. Does anybody see anything resembling a huge 757 tail stabilizer sticking that high up into the air? I'm figuring the rough diameter of that heavy white smoke trail at about 12-13 feet. The top edge should be about 3.5 times as tall as the top edge of the heavy white smoke trail. No? Anybody?



I sure don't see it. I see a puny little appendage of some sort; but no 757 tail. So where is it? Do we need to be wearing our 9-11 OCT Special Specs to see it?





[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

posted by cogburn
If you can prove exactly what type of aircraft it was and a valid estimate for its weight at the time given fuel consumption and passenger load I would be happy to debate that in another thread as well.

Otherwise no g-force calculations may be applied.

The official aircraft was Flight 77 tail# N644AA. The alleged fuel loads et cetera are readily availble to a search engine.


posted by cogburn
EDIT: As to the Trucios' "pull up" or "a little bit" please provide the video you are referencing and the timestamp at which the statement was made.

Gimme gimme gimme. Are we to assume that you too have not bothered to carefully go over CIT's material and research? You have much studying to do before you waste any more of our time. What kind of scientist answers a matter before he has studied all the available material?

We are not interested in debating some wild theory of yours interposing some alternate air frame. We are interested in proving the Official Flight 77 fantasy a lie and speeding up the process of ensuring justice for 3000 murdered innocent people.




[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by cogburn
I have three issues with what you posted.

#1 - you use different source images than I do. Furthermore your images suffer from additional degradation from YouTube video processing and subsequent streaming. As a result they are of inferior quality images to the ones I used.

And you prefer to cut off the right side of the images.
Honestly I don't except that there were two releases of the images. One release was in 2002 by the AP and the second was the "official" release in 2006. If you can find better original for frames of the 2002 OR the 2006 release I will absolutely do the analysis again.



Originally posted by SPreston

posted by cogburn
#2 - The source of the 2006 images cannot be confirmed as from the exact same piece of equipment as the 2001 images.

What exactly are you alleging? There were four cameras videotaping the event? Assuming everything was not just manufactured from scratch, where else would the frames be from except the original videos or copies of those original videos? Of course the 2002 frames and the 2006 videos were doctored because nothing hit the Pentagon and the actual aircraft was to the north and at a higher altitude. Perhaps these videos and still frames were doctored specifically to remove an aircraft flying across neared to the cameras and much higher above the lawn. So they doctored two frames to remove the aircraft and removed a few more frames. Works for me.

It may work for you, however you are comparing apples and oranges. There are two distinct sets of images and you claim, with no proof, that they are absolutely the same.

Since no proof of sameness can be provided an identical analysis may be performed on both sets of images.

Please, find me better SOURCE images for the 2002 or 2006 release and I will do my entire analysis over again.



Originally posted by SPreston
A 757 aircraft wing hung engine sits about 3 feet off the ground when sitting on its landing gear and the center of that engine is about 7 feet off
...
*SNIP*


Please read the very top of my post. I make no assertions that it is Flight 77, a 757, or even a commercial aircraft and I state that right up front. I don't know what it is, so I suppose a more accurate description would be to say that it is a "unknown object that appears to be an aircraft"... a UOTATBAA. I'll use that from now on if you feel it would be more appropriate.

Interesting you posted those tail sections. I wonder if the angle of the right edge of the logo to the trailing edge of the tail can be matched with an acceptable margin of error to angle of the right edge of the anomalous artifact to the trailing edge of what I presume is the "tail". We don't know the angle at which the UOTATBAA hit the wall of the Pentagon and there's just enough data missing that we can't tell. Different source video might have something more (hint, hint).

Should I take it as a given that neither of you have disputed the fact that there does indeed appear to be an UOTATBAA in that frame?

Do you have other original source images that you would like me to put to the test?

If those images show something similar to the object in my images would you then be convinced there is a UOTATBAA there?

I will certainly check that out after breakfast and some coffee.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by cogburn
If you can prove exactly what type of aircraft it was and a valid estimate for its weight at the time given fuel consumption and passenger load I would be happy to debate that in another thread as well.

Otherwise no g-force calculations may be applied.

The official aircraft was Flight 77 tail# N644AA. The alleged fuel loads et cetera are readily availble to a search engine.


My theory is fully expressed. If someone would like to pose that theory they should gather that evidence and start a new thread like I did.


Originally posted by SPreston

posted by cogburn
EDIT: As to the Trucios' "pull up" or "a little bit" please provide the video you are referencing and the timestamp at which the statement was made.

Gimme gimme gimme. Are we to assume that you too have not bothered to carefully go over CIT's material and research? You have much studying to do before you waste any more of our time. What kind of scientist answers a matter before he has studied all the available material?

We are not interested in debating some wild theory of yours interposing some alternate air frame. We are interested in proving the Official Flight 77 fantasy a lie and speeding up the process of ensuring justice for 3000 murdered innocent people.
I used his research. Is there someone else with a view of that area that is equal to that of Mr. Trucios?

Oh wait... Sgt. Lagasse. Odd that Sgt. Lagasse never mentioned that Mr. Trucios was standing in front of him. Maybe it was because no one had ever asked him. Kinda like where he was really standing when he saw the plane fly over... he didn't remember that until someone asked him, either.

Mr. Lagasse is not a credible witness because he either made two flaws in his account or a mistake was made on the behalf of the interrogator in his questioning and research.

I'm pretty sure there's a way that Sgt. Lagasse can be reinterviewed with Mr. Trucios being present that may help his memory become startlingly accurate. His story may just change again but be more consistent with his 2003 account. However that is outside the topic of this thread.

Is there anyone else other than Sgt. Lagasse that had an equal view of events from any angle as Mr. Trucios?

I'm sorry that you find my conclusions objectionable. The first thing I instructed you to do when reading my thread was to open your mind. If you cannot provide any factual basis to refute my claims then I would insist that it would be your pre-conceived notions that are incorrect. I have given you plenty of legitimate routes to do so.

If you prove my theory incorrect, I'll request the mods note this thread accordingly in the title and lock it.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

posted by cogburn
Interesting you posted those tail sections. I wonder if the angle of the right edge of the logo to the trailing edge of the tail can be matched
'snip'
Should I take it as a given that neither of you have disputed the fact that there does indeed appear to be an aircraft in that frame?

No you may not. Craig and Aldo can speak for themselves. I am not a member of CIT. There is no smoke trail in those videos and still frames. There is no aircraft nor any other air frame in them either. They are faked, altered, manipulated, photoshopped, cut & pasted ..... very poorly I might add.

The actual aircraft was witnessed Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and could not possibly have taken down the light poles nor entered these video images as shown. There are no viable witnesses to a second airframe entering the immediate Pentagon lawn area. There was only one aircraft. Therefore these videos are faked to indicate differently. I am not interested in debating with you whether these drawn images look enough like a plane or not.

Your imagined aircraft tail is not tall enough to be a 757 tail when compared to the heavy white smoke trail which officially came out of the right wing engine which was officially 1 foot 11 inches off the lawn.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I say again, I make NO CLAIMS it was a 757. There is not enough evidence to prove that that object in those photos is a 757.

Are you saying there is NOTHING there? Are you saying that it does NOT look like an aircraft, or does it just not look like the aircraft that you are convinced that it should look like?

If you have original source material please provide it so I may perform the analysis again or pick another aspect of this theory to discuss.



[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


The video is merely a grainy fish eye lens that is automatically invalid evidence anyway due to the source.

You can not question the event of 9/11 and accept data that was controlled and provided for by the suspect as valid evidence.

That would be rather silly and completely illogical.


Regardless, the physical damage is what you need to reconcile your "theory" with and you can't do it.

A plane on the north side can not cause ANY of the physical damage.

You are completely unable to demonstrate how it can so your theory is dead in the water.

Even if you ignore the light poles (which makes zero sense for any honest person trying to get down to th truth).....

Explain how the directional damage to the generator trailer and building leading up to the strange round hole in the C-ring that lines up perfectly with the south side approach could be caused by a plane impacting from the north side approach.







Do it.

Support your theory with examples and SHOW US HOW a plane on the north side could cause this damage. Give me images, models, & data because your long-winded rants prove nothing.

There is a reason why NONE of our previous detractors have tried to suggest a north side approach impact is possible.

Do you think you are smarter than Adam Larson, John Farmer, NASA scientist Ryan Mackey and the entire jref team of pseudo-skeptics who obsesses over every word we type?

Did you happen to just figure something out that they all missed?

Please.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
This theory does not have anything to do with internal Pentagon damage.

Since you offered the challenge I will absolutely research the internal damage of the Pentagon and devise a theory that fits.

Furthermore, I will make absolutely no effort to link it to the impact on the outer wall. If the theories are both correct then they should agree without any effort or possibly an additional investigation to prove it true or false.

But first you have to prove this theory as lacking and while you have posted the same images repeatedly, you have yet to directly refute either Trucios' testimony as I have presented it nor my analysis of the 2002 images.

You have not yet responded to my request for your reference as to the "pulled up" comment. Unless the full statement was "pulled up a little bit" and you'd rather not split semantical hairs without something to back up your claim.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

If you accept the account of Robert Turcios you must accept that the plane did not hit the building.

Why?

Because all physical damage is 100% irreconcilable with the north side approach.


Since all of your witnesses either claimed they saw the jet hit, or believed it did, and none reported seeing any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon, we can conclude with certainty that your "flyover theory" is, in fact, 100% inconsistent with all of the physical evidence.

Which is why the burden of proof remains, as it always has, on your shoulders to prove your theory with actual, verifiable evidence.

No one understands why you do not want to give positive, verified eyewitness or media reports of a jet flying over and a way from the Pentagon when it is crucial to your theory. No investigation in the world has ever concluded without providing the necessary evidence to prove it, but CIT has reached an theory-breaking impasse and does not want to provide the necessary evidence.

Let's remember that your theory of a "flyover" means that eyewitnesses would have seen and heard a LOUD jet very much in keeping with this low flyby:






[edit on 19-11-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


So let me get this straight.....

You are claiming that you don't have to reconcile your theory with the physical evidence?






Clearly you are joking.


Turcios saw the plane on the north side like everyone else.

The north side approach is irreconcilable with ALL physical evidence.

The government provided security video means nothing when compared to the hard physical evidence evidence.

The generator trailer kills it.


But so does ALL the damage including light poles and building.

Relax, take a deep breath, realize that you jumped the gun here and concede because you are rapidly exposing yourself as someone with no regard for facts, science, evidence, and truth.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn


You have not yet responded to my request for your reference as to the "pulled up" comment. Unless the full statement was "pulled up a little bit" and you'd rather not split semantical hairs without something to back up your claim.



The video is right there for everyone to watch.

Robert Turcios discusses the pull up on more than one occasion.

I don't understand what your issue is here.





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join