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

thanks! Yeah most just dismiss the footage entirely. Its doctored, etc. Maybe so. I like your posts I've seen. Keep it up.

Very interesting stuff and the amount of investigation from both sides of the debate is incredible! One thing that I’ve probably missed as I read these threads but I still can’t understand the possibility of being able to fly not into the building but essentially landing a commercial aeroplane at near maximum speed (ok faster than normal) without crashing into the lawn/road, not leaving any skid marks (haven’t seen any Pics with these?) and then continuing at same speed into the building without the landing gear at least having some issues that causes the plane to veer, pitch or something? No so its able to run parallel to the surface at this speed (I’m assuming this is the case or wouldn’t the engines have either exploded or broken off or left neat marks?). Has John Lear given comment about such outstanding flying?

Anyway its an amazing site, thanks!

Originally posted by Toadmund
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)

Remember the aircraft is (supposed) to be at VERY low altitude, and at full power traveling at 450 kts. It could be dust kicked up by the engines (if the aircraft was ever that low).

Why though, was the ground undisturbed? The smoking gun of smoking guns???

Traveling at 400 mph at 30 ft, hitting 5 light poles, maintaining control and altitude for another 100+ yrds hitting detached trailer and 2 chain link fences before hitting in between 1st and 2nd floors at a roughly 45 degree angle, leaving little to no debrie, if you look at first responders pics, simply amazing! Too bad this Arab who had little experience landing large jets and no experience in a 757 died here. He would have been an exceptional pilot if he would have applied himself in a less violent way.

Y'know, fact is we can't really say what was happening in the cockpit. According to some of the FDR data, the hijacker re-set tha altitude at 18,000 feet on the way in for the attack eaxctly as FAA rules mandate. !!! The precision of appraoch is suspicious, and the speed at the end, by the FDR data, was in fact near-top, a steady increase upon descent AND 360 degree turn, from about 350 to 575 mph (top speed 609?) - tho i've heard much tooth-gnashing over its impossibility, and I find remote control precision guidance most likely, could it be that Hanjour was just an ace pilot who acted bad a few times to "trompe le monde" and leave us wondering?
And as for the dust claims I've seen around, again, the grass was undisturbed and it's not a desert. Smoke is smoke, plane is plane (white, compact, discrete, and casting a shadow), and dust, if any, wouldn't show up. As for the smoke, that's an oddity. Opinions?
and the grass not being disturbed: Yes. the plane crashed into the building, not the lawn. Tricky piloting again, but otherwise case closed on the lawn, including the "suspicious" graveling.
Many reports say the plane did hit the ground, even reputable ones. It did, right here:
- vent/exh structure, the blue in the map below:

I know this isn't the right thread but oh well. We're off track already and actually seem to have no track.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

don't you think that if the "government" was going to fix their video
to make it look like a plane hit the pent , don't you think they would know that people would use software like this to look at it and use software that
makes photo manipulation undetectable ?

[edit on 12-3-2007 by gen.disaray]

Depends on what they are/were trying to show/hide. I was wondering, is this image and the colour present on one of the 5 frames of the pentagon crash that were released long before the extended version? That could show if it has since been twiddled with.

Cheers Caustic, I'll try and maintain it, but this is supposed to be where I come for a break, and it ends up eating days out of the week! Regards.

Wow this thread got hot. Sorry, I get sucked into new projects constantly.
I started and finsihed my latest video since I bumped this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'


I'll try to sum up to catch up. And thanks for your WATS!


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

Diversion. Regardless of what anything (related to 911) means. I see every aspect of 9/11 as proof of this: even Flight 93 can be successfully argued either way. Every single issue leads to total confusion the more the evidence you try to weigh. It defies belief that EVERYTHING could be so absurdly twisted and confusing in such a mass witnessed and recorded event, and each plane / building incident has so doubts. What are they diverting us from, besides the normal theories? See my latest video ^^^^



gottago:
"That newly identified anomaly with the smoke trail is very strangely shaped and what is one to make of it?"
Well actually I did this right after they released it ... been waiting all this time for some real elaboration on these findings.

The smoke trail does shake it up a bit: What it means is that the plane hitting the lightpoles would have to cause smoke to begin streaming out in the split seconds between hitting the Pentagon, and that the smoke would obviously have to be white/grey instead of black. The smoke coloration could potentially be a serious issue...
Flight 77 not even hitting the poles, as described by Pandoras Black Box and the Pentacon only makes it more confusing [see: diversion argument above]



Caustic Logic:
Wow, you some real image analysis there. Sort of like the stuff the Pentagon's been putting out to back up their Osama tapes, yet don't provide us with these Pent tape releases.

In your image it's hard to assume that it was anything but a tailfin. In the phantom image its funny that it almost looks like a tailfin is in it. Sorta like the entire plane is crunched into that near egg shape in the frame. It almost comes down to that: soemhow the entire plane is visible, yet in that odd shape, or this is a case of doctored images. Like most of 9/11, it just doesnt make much sense.

Interesting frame / speed analysis. It really shoudl gon no further than the FDR as the "official" record, and if physical evidence could prove otherwise then it potentially makes a case of fabricated FDR evidence, which from there just amkes it all the more confusing because WHY wouldn't they want to "prove' their side 100% (unless it's all intentional diversion)?



Agit8dChop:
"what is it your trying to promote here?
that the smoke trail behind the 'thing' that hits the pentagon isnt correct for a boeing theory?"

I'm not exactly sure on anything really.

I see there being potential for it to make or break the boeing case however. That's why I came here where many of you have done soem serious thinking on this overall matter. I normally don't even bother looking too far into anything to do with the Pentagon, but I seen importance in using that software to help clear the matter up.


gottago:
i24.photobucket.com...
I didnt make that initial overlay image. I found it on another site at the time and used it just to show what sort of color we might expect to see an AA plane project if it were in the picture.



Caustic Logic:
"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? "

From the other saturation plane images it would seem that if it's the actual plane (the phantom) then it would apparently need to be tilted at a major angle for the red to not light up like a xmas tree like the other examples.
-OR-
It would HAVE to be some rather major glare, so from here we'd need sun angle analysis.
-or-
Both.

" 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. "

Anyone know of any images of a damaged plane putting off a smoke trail? Having an example of the color of smoke that would be put out could be important here.

"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."

That's a critical concept to keep in mind...



[edit on 26-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

It turns out that oil leaks can cause white smoke, so therefore oil could have ruptured into an engire after smacking the lightpoles.

Oil leaks in the hot section of the engine can cause a really smokey engine

Wouldn't that be a White smoke.

Yep, white thick smoke, or flames (depents on where the oil is leaking)
www.airliners.net...

And, there's always the potential for carbon in the engines to have been dislodged from the impacts:

Smoke (usually called soot) is formed in the fuel rich regions of the combustor, generally close to the fuel spray. Most of the soot is then consumed downstream in the dilution zone of the combustor. The smoke you see is carbon that was not consumed in the combustor and has traveled through the turbine and exhaust nozzle.
[same source]

images:
www.airliners.net...

The thing that still fascinates me is the timespan allowed between the lightpole collision and the time of the available images.

Has anyone figured out the exact time between these events?




As far as the missle theory, the missle would have had to still been in the rocket-booster stage for this shot, meaning it would have to have come from short range. I imagine you guy have covered this elsewhere (the pentagon threads here are so long one can hardly go thru them).
www.howstuffworks.com...

1st stage:
ed-thelen.org...
www.wonderland.org.nz...
2nd stage:
static.howstuffworks.com...

Unless it was a rocket engine only missile:
www.jcrocket.com...

I would just like to say that this def. looks like a missle....

Um. Thats what I thought, too.

I guess we kinda see what we wanna see. The video sucks! It's fisheyes and one FPS and lo-res. Whatever we see in it, the phys evidence is clear. A 757 imprint ad parts inside and out.

On the smoke: it's in the frames, grayish, lingering for several seconds before disipating. . The white could be smoke, but that rules out a 757 (not eouugh room to hide behind booth, which is why I doubt the "tailfin"), and in the second camera's view, what everyone cites as the plane is the same shade of white, and on the same scale.
IMO gray is smoke, white is plane.

The thing that still fascinates me is the timespan allowed between the lightpole collision and the time of the available images.

Has anyone figured out the exact time between these events?

As far as I know, no one knows the time of pole clipping to the second. How do you know of the time lag? Any clues to share? It was close enough tht most witnesses felt the plane had done it in its pass.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I guess we kinda see what we wanna see. The video sucks!

I know.


Yet they give us advanced analysis on Osama tapes:

s24.photobucket.com... (Album)
Yet those tapes were somehow released in a docudama many months before the media????:
infowars.net...

A 757 imprint ad parts inside and out.

Some of the debate about those fascinates me.

(not eouugh room to hide behind booth, which is why I doubt the "tailfin"),

Do you have some math about that specific that I could check out?

and in the second camera's view, what everyone cites as the plane is the same shade of white, and on the same scale.
IMO gray is smoke, white is plane.

One view that I can't shake is that if we're to accept this video for what it's wortth perhaps the white is a concentrated smoke trail and that phantom blob is somehow the plane. Unfortunately it's all incredible regardless, like damn near everything else about 911.

As far as I know, no one knows the time of pole clipping to the second. How do you know of the time lag? Any clues to share? It was close enough tht most witnesses felt the plane had done it in its pass.

Well I think I had seen some good work about that buried deep in that huge pentagon thread,it happened to be some detailed work going on at the time I posted this last year, they were working on a detailed math model, but none of them added anythign to this thread and I havent the foggiest how to get right to that in the huge thread.

If only we could use the NTSB video to answer this question, while that NTSB video is what makes this last ditch effort important in trying to figure out. How cna it be that so much of the evidence could be so shady, and most importantly the evidence that could actually be manipulated for whatever reasons?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

(not eouugh room to hide behind booth, which is why I doubt the "tailfin"),

Do you have some math about that specific that I could check out?

It's widely pointed out by people who claim no 757 and I agree. This is how I mapped out the tailfin problem.


I had the blocked view a bit too narrow there tho - it's really more like this:

(thi ths one I mixed up the camera/plane postions - read 1 for 2, 2 for 1.
Still not enough room to hide. We'd see lots of silver nosecone exiting the left side...

One view that I can't shake is that if we're to accept this video for what it's wortth perhaps the white is a concentrated smoke trail and that phantom blob is somehow the plane. Unfortunately it's all incredible regardless, like damn near everything else about 911.

I think I'm done with the video. It hurts my brain now.

As far as I know, no one knows the time of pole clipping to the second. How do you know of the time lag? Any clues to share? It was close enough tht most witnesses felt the plane had done it in its pass.

Well I think I had seen some good work about that buried deep in that huge pentagon thread,it happened to be some detailed work going on at the time I posted this last year, they were working on a detailed math model, but none of them added anythign to this thread and I havent the foggiest how to get right to that in the huge thread.

Sorry you don't have the link for that - I'd be curious how they arrived at their numbers. I can't think of any reliable way that could be done.

If only we could use the NTSB video to answer this question,

REPORTEDLY NTSB animation. Paper trail proving this is unclear. (too long to explain here)

while that NTSB video is what makes this last ditch effort important in trying to figure out. How cna it be that so much of the evidence could be so shady, and most importantly the evidence that could actually be manipulated for whatever reasons?

It can all be manipulated theoretically. All the phys ev could be faked/planted.
Theoretically possible. Likely? I don't think so...
Videos not released could be to hide the truth - and what that truth is we can't say for sure. They may have chosen to be all convoluted and use a missile but fake out a plane or whatever, but that's not been convincingly illustrated to me. It keeps lining up, physically, wih the official story.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I heard that the owner for the Dallas Mavericks was helping with finacing "loose change final edition", maybe he could buy a 757 and set up a fake Pentagon complete with lamp posts and do a little research on how a 757 reacts to hitting said things at 500mph.

Originally posted by gen.disaray
don't you think that if the "government" was going to fix their video
to make it look like a plane hit the pent , don't you think they would know that people would use software like this to look at it and use software that
makes photo manipulation undetectable ?

No, what I'm arguing is that the entire thing is set up to be impossible. Virtually all of the evidence is deeply flawed. Even the NSTB flight path video doesnt match up with the official flight path. In my view, it's purposely turned into one giant disinfo where the more you look at everything the less sense it makes, or appears to. I have tons of supporting arguments.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Hey do you have a better quality version of this photo? Notice the white debris at the very bottom? On this side of the wall. Could that be debris from the wall blowing away from the buiilding is what I'm asking?

[edit on 27-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

A whole page of photos of the wall - plus other shots of value.

I'm still not an expert but the more I look at the evidence the more it actually makes sense to me. Not that there aren't still mysteries, just less and less.

I watched it of course the quality was poor but I never saw anything,then I saw the exposion. I let it finish and watched again. For one quick second I did see something white, then the exposion. It was no plane. Either a missle hit it or it was a bomb from within the pentagon.

Air space is restricted anyway in the immediate DC Capitol area right?

That's debatable because the Reagan Airport was located near there.

Nevermind the AFB that's even closer if I'm not mistaken; or the so-called high alert status that was going on that day.