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]
