The PentaCon

No problem.

I have forwarded it to Rob and he has an account here so maybe he'll join in.

Just thought of another problem! The smoke trail as seen in CCTV footage, lingering on flight path straight to the building

It's worthless doctored video I know, you guys showed it briefly - but why edit in a smoke trail? Looks like a contrail to a dummy, but not at sea level - missile trail? I think we both know better than that.
Some think engine smoke - from "ingesting" a lamp head from one of the poles it clipped on the official path.
Youtube video link
On your path nothing was clipped, so no reason for engine damage, no reason for smoke trail.

But again that's doctored and irrelevant, and this is about the 4Xverified witness testimony as pictured in my pik-up-stix graphic. Just thought I'd point this out and I'm working on the witness list. Far from surrendering that.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Just thought of another problem! The smoke trail as seen in CCTV footage, lingering on flight path straight to the building

It's worthless doctored video I know, you guys showed it briefly - but why edit in a smoke trail? Looks like a contrail to a dummy, but not at sea level - missile trail? I think we both know better than that.
Some think engine smoke - from "ingesting" a lamp head from one of the poles it clipped on the official path.
Youtube video link
On your path nothing was clipped, so no reason for engine damage, no reason for smoke trail.

But again that's doctored and irrelevant, and this is about the 4Xverified witness testimony as pictured in my pik-up-stix graphic. Just thought I'd point this out and I'm working on the witness list. Far from surrendering that.

Virtually nobody accepts that video as valid because even the most remedial of video editors can tell upon first analyzation that frames were removed.

Plus you can see a shadow cast by every other thing in the image other than the "plane" or the smoke trail.

missing frames alleged by Zebra. I thought there were zero missing frames to his three, alleged, but decided one really was missing. It doesn't seem a significant one, as by speed-frame-rate we would only see one frame with the plane from each camera, and nothing appears out of sequence to me. If his 2nd and 3rd frames are missing, the “plane” was moving either 72 or 320 mph depending on what you take as the plane vs smoke trail.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... ml

Shadow – I think I do see one, though narrow and faint, which is a bit surprising given the distance and resolution. You probably shouldn’t see its shadow much. In fact this is one of my main clues this is the plane.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
Another clue is that if it’s simply too big to be ‘hidden” behind the sec. Box; its nose at least would be sticking out. Another is that it is white, while the smoke in later frames is gray. I cannot explain the dark “tailfin” exactly.

Just in case these observation help you see the other side.
It fits the official story, so something's gotta be wrong with the footage. fine, I can let it go. don't need it. Peace.

Jack is mainly right in his observation of the overall responses, the opposite side is using their usual "muddy the waters" techniques. Starting to babble about unimportant to the heart of the matter, sidetracking details, and avoid the real issue as the Plague.

He's getting far too emotional, and makes the same old mistake, to forget that not all opponents have read the same massive data provided all over the Internet.
I have a hunch, that I have researched all issues regarding the Pentagon attack much deeper than him, and get the impression that he gets a faint notion that he must mistrust me for my political and conspiracy remarks, seeded in many posts.
I am an ally, Jack, not an opponent.
These remarks are placed there, since I am 100 % sure already for a long time, that 9/11 was a definite inside job, and not from the government as a whole entity, but some warring factions of the global military-industrial complex, solving at last some deep entrenched issues between them.

He send me an U2U, warning me to be fast with this IMPORTANT link :

www.pentagonresearch.com...

and to download that Windows Media version. I had it already for a long time, and kept it back to confront any oposition posts, which did NOT arrive, but I thanked him for the effort.
Then 2 minutes later he posted at page 15 that he "didn't want to rain on my parade" and thought the flash at 4:44 in the YouTube version of Judicial Watch was a reflection of the rim(?) of a car.
It definitely isn't a car he probably had in mind, and I can proof that with simple optical laws combined with the physics of objects in motion, and stationary ones.

Now why would he first warn me in a U2U to hurry downloading, and then immediately post that playing down of the significance of my observations?

Did he really NOT see the immense weight of an offered proof that the flash is a reflection of something flying damn fast at an altitude something higher than, and to the North of the canopy, for his PentaCon film, which I applauded him sincerely for, early on.

Was he planning to follow my advices in my flash-posts at page 15 of this PentaCon thread, and therefor doesn't want more attention at the moment for that subject, or does he in fact believe it's a reflection from solely something at ground level?

He didn't U2U me again, perhaps he's so damn busy with infighting with the usual doubters, that he oversaw the relevance and importance of that flash.
Or did he send someone to measure out the original view of the Citgo camera. If so, a warning : I think they replaced the camera to a more west position adjacent to the second, front, outer canopy pole as can be seen in the recent photo of the canopy in my posts at page 15. So to see, the original camera position was further back to the east side of the canopy, near the corner of the wall facing the Pentagon.
Here is that photo again :

Source : i128.photobucket.com...



So I waited a few days, also to let him fight off the posters in his 2 most recent threads, this one and the radar data thread, and now that all is seemingly calm again, let's look deeper into that flash.

www.pentagonresearch.com...

Click it and open in a separate window, than first read all the following points :

1. The reflective flash has a far too great intensity to originate solely from a car or truck window, mirror or chrome bumper. It has all the specifics in that surrounding at that time (bright blue sky with bright sunlight in late summer), to be an intense reflection off a long, fast moving shiny object flying above the visibility horizon of the canopy.

2. The reflection lasts far too long (count the frames where it is visible, it's 10 frames from the video's 29 f/s). That means it's a long, very shiny object, passing in the exact path of sun rays capable of reflecting their intense light into the camera lens, which sun rays bounce back from this long shiny object's surface onto the shiny roof of a black and white stationary policecar stopped to a standstill just a few meters away from the left back side of sergeant Lagasse's white car at the pump.Use the slowmotion feature in the Media Player window (version 11) to be able to see frame by frame, so to watch 29 frames in one second.!!!
It's not another stationary car or truck, or one which drives, stops and drives again, this is not visible in the video, definitely not.
The police car enters the Dual Pump Side video window from the top right one third, passes in front of the canopy, and stops just a few meter further, but beside Lagasse's car. (Start the video at 3:47 and FIRST watch a white van moving from right to left along the north side canopy shadow, then stop the video at 3:52, and repeat that a few times. Then you will see the most important detail, that the sun reflects from the side of that white van up to the inside of the painted white canopy, as a wide FAINT and DIFFUSE reflection.

3. The last reflection in the complicated light path from (plane body)-to-(shiny object at the north)-to-(TL box)-to (fish eye camera lens) comes from the glass cover of the 1 meter long oblong TL box hanging from the underside of the canopy roof, to the left of the corner canopy-pole. Visible faintly in the video at the "bottom" of the flash, but clearly visible in the recent Citgo north pump side photograph I included. The vertical length of the flash is the reflection on the underside of the canopy roof on it's way to the lens, which underside is shiny white in the recent picture taken, and it looks as if it was the same colour at 9/11, observed from the video.
Which proofs the light of the flash came indirectly from a flying object to the shiny police car roof on the ground, back north, and bounced off, upward to the TL-box.
But it was not a far away car, no car can drive that fast, and so high, since there is no very elevated road there, and give such a massive intense reflection of the sun. Only a fairly big and long surface can do that, and no truck or car that big and that shiny is to be observed passing the centre line of that flash before, during or after that flash.

4. If you obey to the rules of perspective, and draw some lines in the video-screenshot I provided, extending visible boundaries and lines in the photograph, and then draw a line straight through the vertical centre of the flash, you will see the vertical position of the plane's body, when the sun reflected on that body and bounced off the shiny stationary police car roof north of the canopy shadow, to re-bounce off the TL box glass plate to the lens.
This also proofs the plane flew behind that black and white police car, of course higher than it. The sun can't reflect from a plane's body flying in front of that police car positioned at ground level.

5. Directly after the flash disappears, the police car accelerates and leaves the Citgo grounds to the right, on the road leading to the Pentagon entrances. Of course these police officers got the shock of their life, seeing this huge shiny plane pass by to their right, with such immense speed at that height. It is clear that they had the motor still running, because they sped away directly after the plane passed. Contrary to sergeant Lagasse, who jumped in his car and first send a radio dispatch of his sightings. Then he started his car, without paying at the counter, and sped away, following the same route as the black and white police car a bit earlier on.
File a FOIA request to be informed who manned that damn important black and white police car and request a copy of their original daily report at headquarters !!!
There must be files of it in the daily reports.
The perpetrators didn't have all that manpower to erase all traces of their treason, you still have many changes to trap them.

6. It is very easy to make a lightpath drawing, seen from the west side of the Citgo gas station, looking east to it and the Pentagon in the background.
Draw a line from the camera lens position, to the TL-box, and down to the black and white police car's roof, and then extend that line from that police car's roof into a northerly direction, upwards.
The angle of the last upwards reflection line must be identical to the angle of the line drawn from the TL-box to the police car's roof, a simple optical law.
Somewhere on the line of that last drawn line is the position of the plane's body, but higher than the canopy, or we should have seen the plane pass by in the Citgo video.

7. For the more serious and pit bull like researchers, have a look at the top right little window of the packed 4 little video windows beside the Dual Pump Side video window. That one depicts the exit/entrance west side of the north view of the Citgo.
You can check that position, to be sure, by observing the cars coming from the left in that little window, and then disappear to the right, and THEN turning up in the Dual Pump Side video window.
Then tell me what you see.... a few interesting things. They forgot to diffuse that video window.

8. I am quite sure, that if a disgruntled American, or US organisation manages to file a FOIA request first, and obtain the un-edited version of this Citgo video, that you will find a recognizable reflection of the planes body, wings, motors and tail on the inside roof of the canopy, in that suspiciously diffused (by the FBI) band in the top of the Dual Pump Side video window.
This means that top brass of the FBI is also involved in the treasonous "official" conspiracy.

9. I also expect the real original recordings to be far more clear and sharper, remember, this is a SECURITY camera's recording, it is intended to be used as a VERIFICATION TOOL and eventual lawsuit evidence.

Use all the features of Windows Media version 11 to highlight or contrast the important frames, around 4:44 and while checking faint reflections at the same exact point earlier on and later on, then you will understand the grave implications of that flash for the official flightpath theory.
And the immense support for Jack's filmed witnesses.
And the support for the Pilotsfor911Truth analysis of the radar tracking data from the NTSB, concluding that at least the last few hundreds meters of that data were faked.
And that the final part of the flightpath was north of Citgo gas station.

In my opinion, that whole bunch of data was faked by date. They just let a 757 fly that exact route on an EARLIER date, except that particular plane overflew the Pentagon, made a second big loop and then landed on Reagan International. Then they cut out the last loop and the last half mile in front of the Pentagon in that earlier recording. Then one person in the right position switched the recorded NTSB radar data for that earlier data. On 9/11. Directly after the plane "hit". During all the confusion and when all flight controllers were ordered out of the room. And they fabricated a fake black box record from a black box found in a highly suspicious place, near the front of the west wall's E-ring, the place of "impact".That's why you don't see the pass-over of the original 9/11 plane, since the radar data were doctored and inserted as if it was the original data. And that's why all the anomalies in the NTSB reports can be explained, about the far too normal behaviour of the TWO pilots recorded on those black box tapes, as explained by johnlear in the radar thread, and the unbelievable smooth performed loop down to the Pentagon, while supposedly on manual flight. It had to be set on autopilot to perform such a smooth loop at that rate of descent.

Again, the north path proved by Jack's eyewitnesses, and don't forget the 2 Arlington National Cemetery workers reports of a flight over their heads, totally nullifies the damage pattern on the west wall and inside the Pentagon E, D and C rings. That damage is caused by either +Mach 3 supersonic flying bunker busters impacting, with DU warheads, which launch a superheated supersonic Depleted Uranium plasma stream through those 3 rings (at that speed NOT visible for the human eye), or by pre placed explosives, which they had lots of undisturbed time for, to place in position during the renovation years.

I now tend to follow and prefer Jack's belief of explosives, since that is the most logical solution considering all the years they had for planting explosives and calculate in computer simulations the effect they would have.
And the effect on the fact, that most researchers confused for all these years : why did these "hijackers" choose to impact at the strongest, least interesting for terror-effectiveness, least occupied part of the Pentagon, and performed such a far too professional descending loop to arrive at the back of the Pentagon, when they could have dived straight in the roof of the main entrance, or in the back of it in the centre courtyard and killing most of the big brass.

The remarks from many posters about the smoke trail on the toll boot videos, are now moot, since we can strongly suggest that those videos were also planted and fake.

To summarize : all the above strongly supports the PentaCon witnesses video.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holy cow, Labtop! It'd take me a while to read all of that. I'm not sure at first who you're upset with. I thought me, at first? For emotionally disagreeing w.JT? Really ask then, am I muddying the waters or watering the muds?

Jack is mainly right in his observation of the overall responses, the opposite side is using their usual "muddy the waters" techniques. Starting to babble about unimportant to the heart of the matter, sidetracking details, and avoid the real issue as the Plague.

It's a valid point I made regarding the smoke, but I let it go. water now 'nice n clear' to focus on the real issue of this thread, argument FOR the northern flight path. Plagues shouldn't be avoided you're right, just confronted head on and cured.

I looked on P 15; Reflection in the canopy? From my uderstanding of how light works, that plane would have to be very very low and very close to the canopy, basically under it, and about in the same position as Lagasse's car, to cast that light up there.
But it's a brief flash only, quite bright, and his car is still. This is clearly something at about the right exact second - good catch I have to say. Is it too muuddy to suggest perhaps the plane's light reflecting off the car? That would make at least some sense, and would illustrate a north flight path.

Other points I may address after some coffee. sorry if I misread. Lack of coffee.

(edit to reflect actual vieing of video - good find)

And this video is real BTW. Couldn't possibly be doctored, so let's ignore the other but not this one. Clear waters, roll on to the sea.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Let me make myself clear :
I do highly respect the input of Jack_Tripper, John Lear, Caustic_Logic, Darkbluesky, g210b, Long Lance, and many others I do not remember by name at this moment, who made this a very important thread at ATS and for the world audience.

Darkbluesky showed to be a real, honest researcher by stating this :
""I withdraw my alternate flight path argument.""
It did cost us all a few days to counter the, in his mind viable, arguments, but I enjoyed the discussion immensely, since it addressed the same feelings many quiet readers will have had, and it had to be cleared for them too.
The other mentioned posters delivered some very good input too, and that's what it's all about at ATS, a solid, logical and scientifically sound discussion to solve raised questions and problems.

So, NO, Caustic_Logic, I did not address you or attack you or Jack, I mainly expressed in the first sentence the many posters I found in other threads in Jack's forum, especially the radar tracking thread, where I just came back from reading.
And expressed my deep confusion about Jack's U2U to me, followed by his immediate contrary post here.


Back to the above posts :

Please see the importance of the bigger white van's reflection in the canopy inner roof, which drove away EARLIER from the pump, circled the canopy and came back in view of the camera to be reflected as a MOVING, faint, DIFFUSE picture on the canopy inner roof.
That proofs that what you see in the upper part of the camera window named Dual Pump Side, is the whole white shiny surface of the inner canopy roof.

And now you understand why the FBI placed that diffusing band over the top part of that video window, which had no SANE reason at first glance.
In fact it triggered my attention, that's where they went wrong, they should have cut it off totally, but then the window had to be stretched up, which would have been more noticeable.
The higher echelons of the FBI are an assisting tool in high TREASON.
Already from the time of the Kennedy and M.L.King murders.

That makes the nature of the bright intense flash more clear.
It clearly reflected from the STATIONARY police car's roof, which is probably slightly curved, as most car roofs are, so it will act as a sort of convex mirror, thus slightly diffusing the clear reflection of the plane's fuselage.
It is also possible that the warning lights unit on top of the police car roof was the reflecting surface, since these things tend to be from chromed material.

PLEASE let someone draw the light path beams of sun rays, and post it here, someone who understands what I explained about the angles of beams being identical.
Nothing better than a picture to make things clear.

Then you will see, when you introduce the position of the SUN on the morning of 9/11, that the plane streaked by on the north side of Citgo, and was in the overall direction and position, the witnesses interviewed by Jack, indicated.

Caustic Logic.

Your remarks :

From my understanding of how light works, that plane would have to be very very low and very close to the canopy, basically under it, and about in the same position as Lagasse's car, to cast that light up there.
But it's a brief flash only, quite bright, and his car is still. This is clearly something at about the right exact second - good catch I have to say. Is it too muddy to suggest perhaps the plane's light reflecting off the car? That would make at least some sense, and would illustrate a north flight path.

My already stated answer :

The sun can't reflect from a plane's body flying in front of that police car positioned at ground level.

It is something at the right exact second, Caustic Logic !
Just watch the cash boot window and the reaction of the visitors, hurrying to the door and packed there, to look at the Pentagon, starting a second after the flash.

""Is it too muddy to suggest perhaps the plane's light reflecting off the car?""

Huhh? That's what I tried to explain in the first place all the time in those above 3 posts, especially in the Next-1 post.

Please review points 4 and 6 in there.
And start drawing for yourself, on a piece of paper, what you think is the light path. Then post it, made f.ex. in Paint.
Then we compare later with all the other respected posters I expect to post such a drawing.

Yeah sorry dude. No this is interesting. I'll look closer at the video and scan the thread pretty soon - divided attention tonight. Of course the light isn't directly from the plane, it was silly to think you'd think that.
Also the blurring - I think I heard it was to protect identities off. - not that the res is good enough to be a threat I'd think. But that said, I missed what the reason you're thinking - heads turning to the north? This could be interesting. again, sorry for the earlier post - sometimes my caustic outruns my logic. Usually it all catches up eventually... Take care.

regarding the heads :

Also the blurring - I think I heard it was to protect identities off. - not that the res is good enough to be a threat I'd think. But that said, I missed what the reason you're thinking - heads turning to the north?

I mean the heads of the people blurringly visible in the cash counter area.

Regarding protecting identities :
That's why I said that there was no SANE reason for the FBI when releasing this video after a FOIA request from JudicialWatch, to blur out ALSO that Dual Pump Side top band. There are NO PEOPLE visible there !

Only in the Cash Counter window you can see faint people.
And I still find no sane reason for the FBI to blur that too. What for?
To protect their identities? Lots of them went online to talk about it on the Internet.
Have a good look at the cashiers head, and how he runs from behind his counter to the door, after the flash. And count the number of people packing at and in that door, seconds after the flash. They were gasping at the fireworks at the Pentagon.

Here you have my impression of the light paths involved.

First the clean, no text, video screen shot from me :



Please review the 4:43 to 4:45 period again, in full screen modus, and tap the Arrow to start and stop the frames, very fast. Then you see the 2, yellow circled by me, black dots coming in, moving and leaving in the top one-third part of the white flash, in the blurred out portion, blurred by some evil FBI honchos.

Then the Citgo photo taken presumably in 2007 or late 2006 :




You must imagine the spot where the black and white police car was standing, with running motor, and then extend the light path UP in the direction of the plane.
How, you ask yourself?

Well, light reflects with the same angle as an incoming beam and as an outgoing beam.
So put a ruler on your screen to the left of above photo, and place the right ruler corner at that virtual police car's hood or bumper, and then lift the left end of the ruler up till it makes the same angle as my outgoing red light beam.

Somewhere on the line you extend from your now correct placed ruler, was the plane.
And you can rule (sic) out, the first part of that line. ( If it would have been visible in the above video shot).
Because we can't see a real plane flying in the field of vision of that camera.
Thus, it has flown quite high, higher than the official humbug has always told us.

Not skimming the grass of the Pentagon, if the plane had tried to dive and subsequently level off, to fly perpendicular to the Pentagon lawn, it would have smashed in that lawn, at that SPEED and with that huge amount of INERTIA involved with that speed.

We just convinced Darkbluesky in the past pages, that it is that INERTIA that made it impossible at the recorded speed (by NTSB and others) for the plane to make such aerobatic manoeuvres.

And have a good look at the obstacles in this new flight path proved by Jack and his witnesses, the plane must have flown with his belly over the route 27 huge overspanning roadsigns to be able at all to hit the Pentagon.
If so, it would have been clearly visible in the Citgo video's Dual Pump Side video window. It was NOT.

And the field of vision of that Citgo camera is reaching much higher than you think at first glance, just draw a line in the above photo, from the camera position skimming the under side of the canopy, and then extend it up.
That's the maximum upper boundary of the field of vision.
Higher than you thought, ain't ?

Now try to find the zenith position of the sun at 11 September 2001 and try to place it in that Citgo photo. It probably will have to be drawn in the virtual space above that photo, and to the right. Just observe the shadows in photo's from 9/11, just after the Pentagon attack, then you can make a good guess of the sun's position at that time, around 9:30 a.m. to 9:40 a.m., and draw the shadows of the canopy rims in that photo.
Then extend a line from that shadow corner to both the roof rims, and VOILA, there is the sun's rays path, and the angle involved.

Show me that you Americans have some brains left after all these media brainwashes you had to endure over 100 years already, and draw me some pictures online, it will at last proof to us, the rest of the world, that you can struggle yourself free from indoctrination and dirty psychological tricks played on you.

I always held my hopes high for you guys and galls, since I read, and was involved in many online discussion boards with US members.

I admit, it is very difficult to overcome your played on patriotic feelings, and open your mind for reality.

But you still have us too, your other fellow world citizens, to help you out and show you the news and facts you have cut out from by world and US media.

Greed is the cause of all evil.

But, look at my signature, and keep your hopes high.
In the end, you WILL WIN.
And expel the real evil nagging at your society.

Yeah, now I'm seeing that you meant the other part, uder the canopy. Yeah, it looks blurred at the top, tho I don't see why... that certainly is not an ordinary sun-off-car reflection, you're right on that. the van is slow, diffuse, that's bright, brief and the two people it seems left insidee at that quiet moment rush right out. Damn this version doesn't rewind for me, so I can't see the effect the blurring might've had on the flash. Or how many people and who is in the station - are my eyes playing tricks on me here?

I can see what you're talking about with light angles, tho not sure if I could draw just what you're thinking. I might do this tho, to see what that would mean for plane trajectory. In fact, this is highly interesting! Some trigonometry is perhaps in order?

EDIT: Then I saw the next post... Digesting data...

P>S> I have a Mac. WMP doesn't work as well for me. Also, you put a #load of work into this, but I can't verify it all myself. I'll have to eep reading for conclusions, etc. and hold my own verdict. But agian VERY interesting find Labtop! Too bad i'm outta WATS.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 11-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

LaBTop,

Look at 4:30 in the video. How come that is the only time there is light reflection off of the black car (right after it parks)?

Plus the light reflection is like it is pulsating for 10 - 14 seconds and then FLASH from the plane.

I'm reading through to see if you have addressed those SPECIFICALLY.

LaBTop,

You got the wrong impression.

I sent you the link because I think you do good work and I thought I read that you said you wished you had a bigger version of the video.

But I am quite certain for many reasons that this video has been altered so I am hesitant to take any of it at face value.

I have had people spin that flash to mean the plane was on the south side and it appeared to me that it came from the rim of the car.

Regardless it's difficult for me to give anything in that video much credibility at all.

I have been busy at a conference all weekend and haven't had the chance to read your enitre analysis. But bottom line, because we have a detailed analysis from a CCTV installer with 16 years experience who pretty much concludes that the video is not authentic, or has been altered or recreated, it makes it difficult for me to tout it as evidence in support of our theory.

However even though it was altered that doesn't mean they caught everything!

There very well may be plenty of legitimacy to your claims.

Read this thread for the thoughts from the CCTV installer:

read here

But trust me bro.....I respect your work.



[edit on 12-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]

Yes. I saw that faint pulsating strip of light a little to the left of that outer column also, and also at first sight thought it was the normal sunlight reflecting from that car, somewhere on it, perhaps a rounded bumper or whatever. But then I got suspicious, because the centre line of the bright flash was (in real dimensions!) several 10th of centimetres to the left of the centre of that preceding faint light reflected. It looked as if the car moved a bit, perhaps the driver let the clutch come up a little, and it rolled a few decimetres, then he braked. And then the bright flash occurred, lasting 10 frames from the 29 frames per second of the video speed. Have a look at the Properties of the video file, the .wmv file. It clearly stated that the video plays at 29 f/s.
Which is extremely fast for a CCTV circuit in 2001, and indicates a damn good system, and thus places a BIG question mark on the overall grainy and bad sharpness of this FBI video.

I however still strongly suspect that the FBI honcho's who clearly doctored this video, have inserted especially this biggest north looking video window, to diffuse the south looking single pump side, WHERE THEY EXPECTED ANY SIGN OF THE PLANE, since they also were indoctrinated 100% that the plane flew the OFFICIALLY announced flightpath, with all the accompanying further evidence and "eyewitnesses", who were overwhelmingly in government service, and thus sensible for scrutiny and DEBRIEFING techniques.
The FBI "doctors" stumbled over their own implanted beliefs.

The extreme bright flash is in no accordance with ANY other reflections in the canopy roof, from other cars taking the same circle around back to the exit/entrance.
This is a reflection from a much bigger object, and very shiny.
Like the polished aluminium body or even more probable, from the huge tail section, of a United 757, flying NORTH of the Citgo.

EDIT in - 2001 - for the CCTV quality and frame speed !

[edit on 12/3/07 by LaBTop]

As you can see, that was an awful huge plane at the supposed height, flying by at top speed at that altitude.
People will NEVER forget such a sighting.
There are a few things in the life of an individual they will never forget, and it always has to do with a lot of adrenaline.
Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios and the occupant(s) of the black and white police car will never forget it, with all the details involved.
It gets burned in your brain forever.
These occupants are becoming damn interesting.

EDIT: I just realize, after viewing my own drawing, that for most readers, it is not clear that the vertical plain where I draw my yellow light paths in, is not very obvious.
All those lines must be in the same vertical plain!
Thus you could calculate the near exact direction the plane took, according to the zenith position of the sun at that moment, and the dimensions of the tail of the plain, which we can assume to be nearly all a perfect flat shiny object over the actual passage of that tail surface in those 10 frames of the video in the path of the sun's rays.
The tail can only move in a very distinct direction, if you take in account all the parameters :
The position of the police car, the position of the Dual Pump Side camera, and the zenith position of the sun at that moment.
The only unknown is then the HEADING of the tail.
The actual distance of the tail to the ground can not be calculated that way, but if we only want to know the heading, then the height can be left out.

Because the positions of the camera and the police car are quite specifically known. So the angle of the incoming beam of the sunlight reflecting from the tail is also quite precise know, it's the same angle as from canopy to the car.

Remember, the sun stood MUCH higher and further than pictured above, but in a very well known EXACT position on 9/11/2001.

[edit on 12/3/07 by LaBTop]

Jack, thanks for that link.
The 16 years experienced CCTV expert brings to attention the exact same problems I had with this damn FBI released Citgo video.
The fact that one part of the FBI send this recording to another part of the FBI to see if they could "enhance" the poor quality of it, let all alarm bells ring in my nerve centre.
And also shocked this CCTV expert, who clearly can't and won't believe at first what he is seeing in that video, professionally based anomalies thus, and then slowly comes to the conclusion that this video must have been doctored by the FBI, he posted his conclusions just a few days ago.

But please, see my above earlier remarks, I still believe strongly that the FBI tripped over it's own wires! They let that flash in, BECAUSE THEY SAW NO HARM for their indoctrinated southern flight path theory.


But what is more shocking, is the fact that in that thread is a link to another thread :
z15.invisionfree.com...
where I found out that Russell Pickering already in October last year, 2006, observed the exact same things as I did, and posted long thoughts on it.

The problem however is HUGE.
He came to the total opposite conclusion, that the plane flew by on the SOUTH side, which is, bluntly said, ridiculous, when you obey to all optical laws, and at the same time accept that that flash is an extraordinary intensive one, compared to all the other reflections from sunlight on metal surfaces at ground level, moving or static, observable earlier on in the video.

I have read up till now page 1 of that thread, where Lite Trip and Merc got into a big fight about the same mistake he made, with him.

I'm going to read the next 2 pages now, and will come back soon.