It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Police Photo Enhancement software reveals Pentagon 'phantom' anomaly, smoketrails & more

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 01:38 AM
I've posted some of these in another thread but they ended up buried and unaddressed. Here I hope that they can be directly addressed and solved (too many topics go way off course ;| ), and I have some more images to add to the issue. I know some of you have some other images that can help here too, but I hope that this wont get far off track like the vast Pentagon threads. Let's keep images of debris and such out of this scope, and focus on the images themselves and size comparisons to work this out.

Does this all prove that the images were faked; that Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon, or something else?

Video Source:
Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (DOD):
Video 1 external video
Video 2 external video

Camera 1 Frame 1:
Normal Full Frame:
Camera 1 Frame 2:
Normal Full Frame:

Camera 2 Frame 1:
Normal Full Frame:
Camera 2 Frame 2:
Normal Full Frame:

Using Kneson Imagner (photo enhancement software used by police stations and even Homeland Security agencies), I've blown many of these images up to the best of my ability.

Police and homeland security agencies nationwide are using Imagener ( enhancement photo software by Kneson Software ( to enlarge and enhance surveillance photos for better content recognition. Since 9/11, surveillance equipment use is increasing. Imagener maintains surveillance photo integrity to increase identifiable detail helping police catch more criminals and increase community safety.

Note that I used Kneson Progressive for the enhanced images. It's perfect for enhancements of the sizes I provide, the higher filters (that I dont have) are for vectoring and would be for if you wanted to go beyond the sizes being used here.

Note that any stated frame numbers are just the ones given by Sony Vegas for reference, they're not literal. Also, it seems to fully change frames every 32 frames, meanign there are 32 physical frame per one viewable frame. Could it be that the cameras were hooked to 32 channel multiplexers, and each camera saved once per second, therefore dividing each second by 32?

external image

Flight 77:
external image

Boeing 757-200 diagram:
external image

Proof of smoke trails:

Large View:
external image

It's said the plane was flying at 400-500 MPH. There was only several hundred feet between where the 757 clipped the light posts and where it hit the Pentagon. There was only a matter of seconds involved between the two. Could light post damage to the plane cause thick clouds of smoke to billow off of the 757 in that short of a period of time / space, to account for the white missle looking object that is seen, if the phantom is infact Flight 77?

AgentSmith's distance analysis image:

The New Camera 'Phantom' anomaly:

Normal Size:



The Old Camera Anomaly:

g210's images (ATS member) which further collaborate the 'phantom':

Plane Color Saturation Comparisons:

Multi-shot Comparison:
external image

[edit on 18-6-2006 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 01:39 AM
Deeper frame analysis / math model of planes viewablility:
This is something CaptainLazy was trying to get started. I don't personally have time to work this out, but his approach in conjunction with my images may be important to figuring out how authentic the images are and in determining what this thing actually is:

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
Lets break it down mathematically. Lets Assume the camera is recording at 1fps, the plane is travelling at 500mph and the space from the wall to the first apearance of the planes front at the right edge is 300meters.
That means that plane would have cleared the grass and hit the building in 0.02 seconds

Check yourself:
So even if the camera was recording at 1frame per HALF second. It still would only catch one shot of the plane.

[size=3.5]The 1/32 a frame difference should add to the math model you guys are working on. Physically there are 32 frames per 1 viewable frame.

Also keep in mind that this site seems to make a case that many of the Pentagon images were faked:
Proof that they can give us better images (found these somewhere here at ATS):

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:28 PM
So I guess everyone forfits? WATS?

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:27 AM
Fantastic! I have never seen these before, and thanks for the detailed work on this.

I do have one question for you. The size and duration of the fireball after the explosion do not look either big enough nor long enough to be a fully feuled jet liner. Your thoughts on this?

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:48 PM
So any answers or questions about what this means?

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 01:11 AM
In video 1 in the first post, it looks like a rocket blast coming out from behind that thing.
When was the last time you've seen jet exhaust like that?

(unless it's just dust kicking up)

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 01:27 AM
1:27 in the first video.

I see a 'vapor' or 'white smoke' coming downward? Which surprised me. It looks like something hitting the ground, then I see an explosion.

This is very strange stuff, and you posted up a lot of images. Good work BTW.

Cause my question is, what exactly is it that the powers that be want to keep us from seeing regarding this incident?

[edit on 4-3-2007 by talisman]

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 01:33 AM
damn looked at that again. It is at about 1:26-27 of the first video, That is something hitting the ground before the plane hits. It definitely is coming in a downward trajectory, looks to hit the ground or close to it before the explosion.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by talisman]

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:07 PM
That newly identified anomaly with the smoke trail is very strangely shaped and what is one to make of it?

[edit on 6-3-2007 by gottago]

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:27 AM
Jeez! Sorry I've ignored this and now just stumbling on as I crash... great work! I've noted colorizing artifacting myself and guessed glare from the alluminum possibly - the phantom I didn't notice, it's quite intriguing. I was looking at the dark blue "tailfin" - what's your opinion on that? It aint a tailfin is it? I liked your enhancements - I just started toying with that

I'll have to look again tomorrow. didn't even quite get what you were saying, whta I'd be forfeiting, etc... I think you get a WATS either way. Yeah, if I got one left. i got stuff to add too. and just to let you know I believe a 757 hit, same official path, probably legit video but likely messed with. No clues of the inside job here, and I've made it my mission to explain why.

That was just a slow start there IIB (I'm guessing "Ignorance" isn't the right nickname for your nickname). It gets rollin' here for at least a few feet.

You have voted IgnoranceIsntBlisss for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month. Sweet. I was more stingy than I thot.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 06:33 PM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So any answers or questions about what this means?

Questions. I gave you a WATS when I was tired, now I need you to earn it.
Not too hard really, just wondering what YOu think of the evidence. I need more input.

From what I understand, 32 mpeg frames per second is standard video, the Pgon cams recorded one frame/sec, hence the 32:1 ratio. So far so good…

Speed: the FDR says its speed was increasing near the end from about 350mph to a final airspeed, as in these frames, of at least 550 (about 500 knots x 1.15). That’s higher than any other source I’ve seen, include. The 9/11 Comm who said 530, supposedly based on this data.

Here's links to what I've done:
Frame rate and plane speed and possible missing frames explored here: ml
I think I may have missed a missing frame after all – I’ll need to go back to that maybe. But if Zebra's 2nd and 3rd frames are missing, the plane was flying about 72 mph.

The video record – field of view – identical at least re: the right edge where the blur appears. ml

A rough mapping of the scene: dge.html

I guess I never got around to posting it, but I did a (very) rough mapping of the lawn widths onto the cameras’ view –

it’s close enough I used it to set my blocked field of view. Hardly any of the plane seems hidden in cam 2’s POV. I can't certainly determing the distance fram camera or angle from this, but it fits ith the official ones - something like 600 feet away, at a shallow angle between profile and 45d. If so we see in cam 2 at least 100 feet of white.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:21 PM
You have voted IgnoranceIsntBlisss for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

awesome work, that must of taken time.

this is the research I love, when you pull apart frames, compare them and filter them with various things < im not very image savy. but top work.

what is it your trying to promote here?

that the smoke trail behind the 'thing' that hits the pentagon isnt correct for a boein theory?

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:51 PM

IIB's saturated version of the Boeing nosing into that famous frame is to my eye quite off. Look at the full frame and the height of the facade in relation to the jet, do some perspective projection/comparison.

It looks tricked: the fuselage is already hugging the ground, not even considering the engines.

But consider that the FDR records that the plane was supposedly coming in at the angle and speed they said it was; i.e., descending and nearing maximum speed.

If so, in the next frame it should have plowed into the lawn, burst into flames, and slide into the facade, leaving a ghastly lawn scar and splattering debris against the facade.

All this after already clipping those light poles, indicating that it also supposedly held stable at about 10-20 feet above the ground at 550+ or - mph for over 300 feet.

That's after whacking the wings with a series of planted metal light poles at roughly the velocity of that piece of foam that eventually brought down Columbia.

This supposed video evidence, the physical evidence on the ground, and the FDR just don't add up at all. It's all over the place. I'd love to see what footage that bank of rooftop security cameras hold.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by gottago]

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:11 AM
Four eyewitnesses (two of them policemen) have been found by Citizen Investigation Team who state categorically that they saw a commercial-sized airplane flying past them very low towards the Pentagon shortly before they saw an explosion there. There is some disagreement over its color and markings, but they agree that it flew over the North (left) side of the CITGO gas station, not the South (right) side, as the official record states. This means that it was impossible for the plane to have knocked over the light poles because they would have been too far away. The poles must have been either planted (I find that impossible to believe - far too risky) or blown up with small, remote detonated explosives. Watch the video investigation at
If you take these people seriously (why should two policemen lie when they knew that their story contradicted the official scenario?), then it means that the knocked-over poles were intended to create a false approach path for investigators. According to these witnesses, the approach angle was more like 90 degrees, not 40-50 degrees. The question then is: why would the plotters go to the trouble of laying down a false approach path? Answer: because they wanted to provide phony evidence that what hit the Pentagon was a commercial plane that was flying low enough to hit light poles and large enough to knock them out of the ground. Phony, that is, because Flight 77, or the plane purporting to be Flight 77, never crashed into the Pentagon but flew over its roof and landed at Regan Airport. Trouble is, the actual plane did not take the planned route, according to these witnesses!

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:22 PM
The Citizens Investigation Committee video "The Pentacon", as referred to above, takes the light poles out of the way of the airplane. No light pole collisions if the witnesses cited in "The Pentacon" are correct. Passenger airplanes don't leave contrails at ground level. Therefore it is highly likely that the images released by the Pentagon are faked.

Have you ever dealt in your personal life with a neurotic? At first you realize immediately that they are nuts. Their demands and peculiarities are rediculous. As time goes by they become irritating to the point of repulsion. Finally you begin to adjust and accept their warped reality into your own sanity. You begin to cope and finally to comply with their neuroses. That's where we are with the koo-koo-bananas Bush administration. Release all the effing videos before you put on your straight jackets, Bushwackers!

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:53 AM
Ignorance isn't Bliss, but I guess easy WATS nominations are. Man I feel gypped.

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:15 AM
Sorry for being really tired and dumb, but I'm not sure what we're supposed to be looking at here. Looks like you put a lot of work into this so I don't want to give up on it, could you perhaps put two pictures next to each other, one with what you're showing and one without, and explain what you think the significance is, for those of us a little less technically minded.

If I'm being super dumb can somebody explain to me the significance of these images.

Also - if these are the ones the pentagon only initially released 5 frames of, and then the motion video a couple of years later, I guess there's three interpretations:

1) There's something in the full footage that was missing from the 5 frames

2) There was something, but they've had enough time to photoshop it out

3) There never was anything groundbreaking in them and they're just Kissingeresque paranoid loons whose nature is to withold all evidence from the public regardless of it's content.

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:43 AM
Hey! Well, I can try to help out in IIB's stead. What I see in the anomalies above - the 'phantom" - color artifacting that when enhanced shows bright blue, the same blue inherent but pale in the essential silver of an AA plane - somewhat pale until enhanced, but indiscating glare ahead of the plane I guess?

I had earlier noticed blue discloration just in front of the plane in the other camera's frame. To me this is yet one more clue that the white blur IS the plane, not a smoke or vapor trail. What exactly is responsible for the transitory blackish "tailfin" I'm not sure, but it's ahead of the plane.

Of course there IS a smoke or vapor trail in the following frames, lingering in the plane's wake. but this is not dense and white with a slight shadow under it as the White blur. it's gray and meandering and tranluscent. As a poster above noted, plane's don't leave vapor trails at sea level, tho rocket fuel does. Evidence either of a missile or of a plane with a damaged engine, perhaps smoking from ingesting a lamp head from one of the lamp poles.

Which reminds me of another problme with the northern flight path ala PentaCon - with no poles clipped, nothing hit, no reason for engine damage, and no missile, what then causes the smoke trail? Cool.

Does that help? Oh, and sorry, that's just my take of course, i cannot really speak in IIB's "stead." I'm really no more sure than you what we're supposed to see. apparently whatever we see? and talk about it? or something. What does "supposed to" mean anyway? We see what we see. Evidence of terror attack as rorschach test. an IQ test from the PTB, the eye at the top of the internet pyramid. luckily I'm retarded and off their radar. And paranoid yikes.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
Also - if these are the ones the pentagon only initially released 5 frames of, and then the motion video a couple of years later, I guess there's three interpretations:

1) There's something in the full footage that was missing from the 5 frames

2) There was something, but they've had enough time to photoshop it out

3) There never was anything groundbreaking in them and they're just Kissingeresque paranoid loons whose nature is to withold all evidence from the public regardless of it's content.

1) Five frames was the footage if I understand. one frame/sec, plane only captured in one frame from each camera. they had a latency or delay from each other of about 0.1-0.3 sec, why the white blur is in a different spot in each view.
2) Can't be ruled out. Seen no great evidence of it personally, a few odd things, but I don't know enough to cast serious questions. sure there are expert types on here that'll say otherwise and then confuse you with how...
3) Most likely IMO. Maybe more than just instinct in fact, but who knows. That probably applies to other footage as well.

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:40 AM
Cheers caustic, I haven't been to sleep for a while so my brains a bit fried!

So basically the hue of whatever is in the right of that frame is comparable to the blue hue of an american airlines plane....

Still, whatever hit the pentagon, unless something totally bizarre was going on (e.g. infighting factions, one trying to do 9/11 one trying to counteract them, both with an agreement not to tell the public about their 'games') then I imagine even if it wasn't an american airliner then they would have dressed it up like one.

However it does take a bit away from the missile theory. What would be the point in painting a missile to look like a boeing!

Nice work on the photo analysis!

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in