I am sorry but where is the shadow of the plane on the pentagon attack? I cant seem to find it.

I am not very good in perspective but I am quite sure we should see a big shadow somewhere in the shots taken from the pentagon. I cant find it not even a small one. Do planes have a shadow? I really wonder because I tought they should have one.

here is the complete 2 videos of the famous pentagon shots.

Please help me out would you? Where is the shadow?






[edit on 28-4-2008 by piacenza]

Hi.

I dont see how this question will solve or educate anyone

as i can see by your thread post history

"I am sorry but where is the shadow of the plane on the pentagon attack? I cant seem to find it. piacenza 28-4-2008 0 9/11 Conspiracies


Nice Video about morph technology used on 911 piacenza 14-4-2008 2 9/11 Conspiracies


Tibetan Terrorist are planning suicide squads. piacenza 1-4-2008 16 Breaking Alternative News

Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet piacenza 4-2-2008 332 9/11 Conspiracies

Very good video analisy of the nose in nose out footage piacenza 23-1-2008 16 9/11 Conspiracies


Computer graphic used on 911 video at 8.25 piacenza 14-12-2007 9 9/11 Conspiracies
911 and WMD

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you implying some farout theory like , tv fakery? , holograms?

What does this have to do with the fact the the Pentagon wedge hit by a plane had just finished blast proofing work such as blast resistant windows and walls in late 2001 pre 911?
Hence the contruction equiptment outside.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by IvanZana]

I am sorry but why are you going OOT???
Who cares what I believe I am asking where the shadow is nothing more nothing less.
Did you find it?

Even if this was actual video footage of the nose of the 7?7 that allegedly struck the Pentagon, the distance between the plane and camera and the angle of the camera pointed at the ground would make it impossible to see any shadow of the 'plane.' It'd only be visible in the first frame of the five, *but the sun would cast a shadow to the east, which would be closer to the camera than the plane.* However, i don't think it'd even be possible to see one, even if more of a plane were visible.

EDIT:

*actually, the shadow would be cast to the west, thus farther from the plane, further suggesting that the shadow would be near impossible to see



[edit on 28-4-2008 by NexGenRevolution]

Originally posted by NexGenRevolution
but the sun would cast a shadow to the east,

I mean no offense, but in the morning, wouldn't the sun cast a shadow to the west? Since the sun is rising on the east?

Hey great thread piacenza!

CIT has been pointing this out for a while.

IMO it's the most blatant evidence of manipulation.

We have to realize how instrumental this originally leaked government controlled "evidence" has been in framing the Pentagon attack debate.

It's definitely more responsible for fueling the bogus missile theories than anything else.

But the reality is......within the context of an investigation into government involvement of 9/11 all government controlled data is automatically invalid evidence in support of the official story.

No matter how you slice it, this dubious security video has served its purpose well by keeping you focused on what hit the Pentagon (when the truth is that NOTHING did) and ignoring the real smoking gun proving the plane didn't hit which is the true flight path of the plane.

Originally posted by Griff
I mean no offense, but in the morning, wouldn't the sun cast a shadow to the west? Since the sun is rising on the east?

Umm... duhh. *looks around anxiously*

My mistake. At any rate, it does make it more unlikely that any shadow would be visible.

NexGenRevolution
where do you think the shadow could be, can you make a little drawing?
I honestly cannot understand where you want to place it in case it was real.
Thnx

My point is: the shadow couldn't be.

The 'plane' is too far off in the distance to make out the ground underneath it.

Sorry, but this topic doesn't really aid in any search for the truth.

Thats because there was no plane that hit the pentagon, it was a missile.
Someone even said it on air not to long afterwards, people brushed it off as a slip up but we all know the truth

reply to post by Griff


Not in bizzaro world.

reply to post by piacenza

since you asked... It wouldn't be visible, or clearly so, in that vid. The shadow would be right under it at too great a distance, about 600 feet from the cameras. Now the Citgo video is another story, with altitude and solar angles expected to cast a shadow abput 200 ft south of the station. Here there is indeed a shadow of a size, loaction, and timing that fits with a 757 passing towards the damage path. Here is an old video, using low-res footage. I plan to do an updated version soonish. ETA: the text commentary is wrong - it holds for 10 video frames at 30 fps, which translates to one actual frame of 3fps video as recorded. ('action' setting is off).

Verify: One frame only, camera 4, at 4:40 in this full video. All the math showing how it fits can be found here, herehere, or here.


[edit on 29-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

No responses? does that means the question was answered? There are doubts about this video's authenticity and accuracy as well. In fact some feel it has been proven to be manipulated, key frames removed and others clearly altered, including this shadow. I was thinking that might come up. eh, everybody knows, ignore the video, it's all fake.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


It means you ruined the flow of discussion when you broke the forum rules by attempting to derail the discussion.

But of course you are wrong.

There is no reason there shouldn't be a visible shadow at least from the strange fake squiggly smoke plume that for some odd reason you like to say is the actual plane.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic

 

But of course you are wrong.

>SNIP< Mod edit. Read your u2u.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 4/29/2008 by yeahright]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic

 

It means you ruined the flow of discussion when you broke the forum rules by attempting to derail the discussion.

what? 'where is the shadow?' he's looking in the wrong spot. I show him a better place to look. I'm not getting tangled back up in discussing this gate cam footage. It's not the best place to find the shadow, which seems to me was the original question.

ETA: since that is what we've been discussing, I do feel the white stuff is the plane, tat it's the right size and proportion and color given sunlight and glare effect, and that it does indeed have a shadow that's fainlty visible. IMO of course.

OP title: "I am sorry but where is the shadow of the plane on the pentagon attack? I cant seem to find it." Apologies if I misunderstood the question.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]