9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Howard, Are you saying that they photoshopped the 2nd clip to include 'fake' concaving of the cover glass (or perspex) from the shock wave...and also artificially create the 'flash' along the Pentagon wall (for more dramatic effect of the explosion perhaps ?) Why would they go to the trouble of doing that? The first video looks like a more likely candidate for photoshopping to me.. The foreground is unrealistically static...and there's no light apparent from the flash of the explosion. Maybe this was done to disguise the severity of the blast...which could be scientifically determined by the force required to concave the cover plate to that extent Apart from the added time stamp etc., the 2nd clip looks more authentic to me The fact that the 4 frames are out of register is a result of adding the 'subtitles'...that's all Peace [edit on 29-4-2005 by Ganesh2005]

GIF's won't always capture every frame if the original video was tape. also, wonder if Adobe will sue for the use of the trademarked program name (Photoshop) as a verb.

The foreground should be static. The fact that even the time tag label jumps around indicates that the second clip has been manipulated. As to who manipulated that video, it was probably someone from the conspiracy camp, trying to prove some cockamamie theory.

There are in the images three "static" road cones... The images: Five frames with greater horizontal cropping published by the Associated Press in March of 2002. www.911research.wtc7.net... www.911research.wtc7.net... www.911research.wtc7.net... www.911research.wtc7.net... And 5 copies of the frames published by CNN with higher resolution. www.911research.wtc7.net... www.911research.wtc7.net... www.911research.wtc7.net... www.911research.wtc7.net...

I was at first skepticle about a plane hitting the Pentagon because of the size of the hole but after that video were you inserted the plane into the outline and other things in this article i am now convinced that it was a plane. That was a very well written article you should be very proud of it.

I think you can fit a Global Hawk in there as well, or a small personal jet. pg(8) pg(2) Notice the building is still standing where is the 757 So a 737 fit into this little hole? marked in red. The U.S. Government should just release the video footage that they claim no to have. and put to rest. Unless that footage shows something other that a 737.

Originally posted by SilntShdw I was at first skepticle about a plane hitting the Pentagon because of the size of the hole but after that video were you inserted the plane into the outline and other things in this article i am now convinced that it was a plane. That was a very well written article you should be very proud of it.

If that's enough for you, then you're pretty easy to convince. There's still the problem of the wings and tail folding up and going into the building. That is indeed physically impossible. Are you just dismissing that?

Well, you guys have completely avoided comment on the discrepencies I was pointing out regarding those two clips... I mentioned the concaving of the lens from the blast, and the flash from the explosion along the Pentagon wall... Of course the witches hats were static...I wasn't talking about them the slight movement of the shadows is obviously a result of the frames being out of register... Have a look at the smudges on the glass cover plate...their movement can't be attributed to the frames being out of register... It should be obvious to anyone that the first video has been severely cropped...if you look at the smudge that lines up with the top of the Pentagon wall...it stays in the same position...you can see that they've used one frame from the original four, and cropped the background explosion and plane etc. into it.... My question is...for what purpose did they do this ? Here's the two clips again...if you can't see the discrepencies I've mentioned, then I can't help you any further... I'm sure even our friend Skeptic Overlord would call you a fool if you can't see the obvious... Clip # 1 Clip #2 Peace to all [edit on 29-4-2005 by Ganesh2005]

Howdy folks... Not sure I buy the Global Hawk, on the evidence you've shown, for the plain and simple fact that part of the "Global Hawk" image is still there after the impact, it's the very last frame... Nice try though...

There does seem to be something definetly wrong with the first picture. If you zoom in on it a bit, you can clearly see that the top right hand quarter changes (the cones move a bit) while the other portions of the image stay the same. Maybe this is how the image is supposed to be but i doubt it. Also (and i can only presume that this has been discussed before) what is the white 'thing' on the right hand side of the image in the first frame? you can see a blur and then it explodes. If this was the plane it would take some seriously skillful flying to pull that off (I would think). I don't know what actually happened to the pentagon, i haven't read this thread much (at 44 pages it would probably grow faster than i could read it) but it seems to me that something strange happened and that we don't really know the whole story.

So... I guess we can put the "Global Hawk" theory to rest now... Honestly folks, you 9/11 conspiracy people are grasping at straws... *sigh* Ahhh...well..to each his/her own...I guess... [edit on 30-4-2005 by Jedi_Master]

Originally posted by Jedi_Master So... I guess we can put the "Global Hawk" theory to rest now... Honestly folks, you 9/11 conspiracy people are grasping at straws... *sigh* Ahhh...well..to each his/her own...I guess... [edit on 30-4-2005 by Jedi_Master]

You must be joking!!!! [edit on 30-4-2005 by dh]

No... I'm not... Did you not see the pic I posted above. That showed the outline of what some reffered to a "Global Hawk", after the Impact ??? *sigh* You have to open your eyes, and see, I can't do it for you...

Yup and it proves nothing What's your problem?

I really don't have a problem per say... It only proves that it wasn't a "Global Hawk"... Back to you...

Interesting read. Truth is always stranger than fiction.!

Nobody's imagination of what's in a blurry picture is going to sway me from the fact that wings and tails of planes do not fold up neatly, or vaporize into nothing. I can't believe there are people who either don't understand physics to that degree, or just choose to manipulate them to suit the story they'd like to believe. It's pathetic, either way.

I have had this for a while I forget where I got it, it is slowed and zoomed, notice the white dot in the last frame at approximately 1 oclock here it is again View from hotel A photo taken from the Sheraton Hotel about 10 minutes after the crash. The view is over the Navy Annex with the Pentagon to the right. As the helicopter is going away from Pentagon and the photographer identified it as a military helicopter, this could have been the same helicopter caught by the Pentagon security camera. I don't know if this means anything, or if there fake and just dis-info. [edit on 2/5/2005 by Sauron]

Nobody's imagination of what's in a blurry picture is going to sway me from the fact that wings and tails of planes do not fold up neatly, or vaporize into nothing. I can't believe there are people who either don't understand physics to that degree, or just choose to manipulate them to suit the story they'd like to believe. It's pathetic, either way.

DAMN RIGHT!

Originally posted by Moe Foe Nobody's imagination of what's in a blurry picture is going to sway me from the fact that wings and tails of planes do not fold up neatly, or vaporize into nothing.

I can't believe there are people who either don't understand physics to that degree, or just choose to manipulate them to suit the story they'd like to believe. It's pathetic, either way.

What is pathetic is your obstinate disregard of the simple physics of an airplane hitting a structurally reinforced masonry building at over 400 mph. Do you honestly think that the wings or the tail would be intact in any recognizable form after that? It is your understanding of physics that is flawed.