Pentagon video rehashed

[canetoad]

It's pretty much a given that the five Pentagon security camera frames were dodgied up. When they were first released I stared at them until my brain ached trying to see a plane in frame 1 and I reckon many other people did too.

Then the penny dropped. We are meant to play find-the-jet otherwise the frames would never have been released. This means that a) there really is a Boeing 737 200 somewhere in the frame or b) a 737 has been photoshopped in.

Pic #1 is a close up of the area right behind the post or stanchion thing. It clearly shows a long, thin white object with some billowing puffs of white smoke behind it. Look closely at the front of the white object. Vague jet airliner window shapes? The whole front section seems to have been thickened up a bit compared to the rest of the object, which looks pretty straight and thin.

Pic 2 has the object outlined. Of course we cant see what is behind the post, but the front and back could very well line up straight.

Pic 3 is the traced outline of a 737 200, made roughly the same length as the white object's straight edges. Not a real good fit.

Pic 4 is same outline of 737 shrunk down so the nose is the same size as the nose on the white object. Shame about the tail.

Conclusions: Sloppy photoshop job. It was too hard, time-consuming or whatever to accurately add a complete, recognisable 737, so they just fiddled around with what was already on the video frame, making it look ever so vaguely like a passenger jet by adding a barely recognizable nose and a bit of a bump on top.

Now I know this has been done to death, so flame away if you feel like it. Remember that as the outrage at the *Bush admin spreads and strenghthens, there is an ever increasing audience who are open to the possibility that 911 did not happen as we were told and it may just be necessary to patiently educate all the new converts.

[Kevin Fenton]

1. Sloppy photoshop

It was supposed to be a 757, not a 737, but you're right about it being a sloppy photoshop job.

This is probably the best analysis of the video stills:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm
The bit about the photos is entitled "Explosion at the Pentagon" and starts halfway down.

[rman]

2. and never mind the sequence skipping a whole second

between 17:37:19 and 17:37:21

[killtown]

3. It's a total fake

the "plane" behind the beige toll both, the white smoke trails, and even the fireball have been photoshopped on there.

Here is the trajectory the security video would have you think the 757 came in at:



This graphic shows the trajectory (purple line) that Flight 77 would have had to fly in at to clip the tops of the lamp poles high up on the road (blue lines) and then enter the 1st floor of the Pentagon (which I would agree). The red dotted line (which I drew in) estimates the trajectory that the official theory seems to suggest if the object in the security photos flying very low and parallel across the ground is indeed Flight 77.

[tocqueville]

4. how about this statement....

http://www.voltairenet.org/article16387.html#article16387

(click on the picture to see the video)

JAMIE MCINTYRE : « From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only sight is the actual side of the building that’s crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately. It wasn’t until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed. »