Here's why.

3MB Animated GIF:


Here's the frames of interest:





How does a plane flying on the North side cast a shadow and cause reflections that correspond with a plane flying on the South side?

The answer cannot be "the video is fake" You have to do better than that.

Oh you mean the video that was released 10 days after I spoke with Robert, 5 days after I posted what he had told me?



You mean to tell me that you trust video that was held for over 5 years and released 5 days after I spoke with a Citgo employee who blows the whole thing wide open?

Faked? Dylan, Russell already proved that they removed a camera the day of 9/11 and the video and released the footage WITHOUT said camera's view.

PROVING THE CITGO VIDEO WAS TAMPERED WITH AND THEY MANIPULATED WHAT WE ARE SEEING.

I hope this not going in FC, Dylan. Because we will prove how you are inaccurate every step of the way.

The answer is, you have not accounted for the sun's angle or a hundred other little details. In reality, careful anaylsis of the solar angle, angle of wall, height of other obstacles, gives incidental evidence of both the northern and southern flight paths.

Neither is conclusive, but the case can be made for either. If you are serious in your inquiry (I suspect you are not), then you can find some rather indepth that I speak of here.

Citgo Video Analysis

Not when the video has been proven to be manipulated/altered before and after its released.

Not when all the witnesses at the Citgo did not see ANYTHING fly on the south side of the station.

The plane and the plane only was on the north side of the Citgo.

This was clearly a hasty, desperate response and poor attempt by the perps to discredit Robert Turcios AND the north side flight path.

Hmmmmmm.....

Let me think for a moment.

Should we trust genuine witnesses who can prove they were there and independently corroborate each other or should we trust data that was sequestered and quietly released by the perps with dubious timing that has been proven to be manipulated?

I don't know.

It's a rough decision.

I've always preferred the authenticity of witness statements over 2 or 3 second video snippets from 9/11 because you never know if the clips have been manipulated. That's why I don't like the arguing of the no-planers.

But I can only speak for myself.

Absolutely.

But this data is MUCH more dubious than any "video snippets from 9/11" because it was completely controlled by the government after being confiscated within a couple of hours, sequestered for 5 years, released 10 days after we announced the first north side evidence, and has been already PROVEN to have been manipulated.

Dylan,

Do you or do you not see how Russell have proven this evidence was tampered with?

So let me make sure I understand this Dylan........


You don't consider this video to be the least bit suspicious even though 3 camrea angles have been removed from it which would confirm your south side approach?

You take this as a legitimate piece of evidence even though the camera's that would have captured the image of the plane on the side you believe it to be on are all removed from the video?

Really?

That must explain why they're withholding all the other video evidence too. Because it confirms that south side approach.

Amazing the government got multiple angles of a bridge falling apart in nowhere Minnesota and can't find a clear image of a 757 outside the Pentagon on the south approach path, isn't it?

The alleged "shadow" is ONLY visible in the register two view.

You can't see it at all at register 1, the sales floor, or the single pump (south) view at all.

Thank you for at least warning me, so I could hit the Stop button.

Maybe Integrated Consultants or Purdue could solve this video mystery. oh wait...

The "reflection" simply comes from the sun off the chrome rim of the car as it moves.

Bottom line EVEN IF this video hadn't already been proven to be manipulated it still is not definitive evidence of a plane on the south side.


This, however, most certainly is definitive evidence of a plane on the north side:






I can't fathom how you could throw this testimony in doubt SOLELY based on this dubious government released data.

Although you have refused to comment on this testimony to this day you are directly involved with it.

You were there when Barbara told us about Robert.

Obviously he was sure about the north side since day one since this is what he told his own manager on that day.

The cops end it.

Robert was clearly remembering accurately.




Wait until you hear the newest north side witness we have.

VERY strong and he describes the bank in detail.

When you going public with it so all this bullshit can come to an end?

I can't believe we're even using this faked ass video as evidence of anything....all this video proves is THEY'RE COVERING SOMETHING UP BY REMOVING 3 CAMERA ANGLES.

Sure as hell can't support their bullshit story if they had to remove the evidence that would confirm it.

This would be my guess as well. Because auto focusing lenses/cameras are going to close their aperture down when MORE light comes into the lens. So because a brighter light got into the camera's view, the lens closed up to allow less light in.

Think of it like your pupils, they are wide in the dark, and smaller in sunlight.

110 % Agree with you Terrorcell !


....Its ok to dig deeper and deeper in every tiny details ...like a "presumed" reflection whatsoever , that could have been cause by anything , in a buggy , lower than cheap resolution video from a gas station. Witch tape HAD BEEN confiscated and tampered by the perpretors and released many years after !

But we should never try to fix a complex scenario with a such a "vague" detail.

The REAL evidence is to be found in what is missing ! The video confiscated , and the camera removed ( also the one on the Sheraton Hotel ) are CLEAR evidence of the NEED to cover-up the visual evidence.

The testimony of witnesses are the only "left" visual evidence we can get.

( To take with great caution ! Human being are not "reliable" as video or photos ( unedited of course ! )


Does anyone had try to get the testimony of Sheraton personnel ? Should be very interesting !

Dylan,

What am I looking for exactly?

Whatever it is, it has "some people" up in arms and very defensive. I think they know.

I think I see a reflection, but I am not sure what angle the camera has.

I think I agree with you as well Finrod. Well said.

What kind of a stupid rule is that? Of course it is faked. They had over 5 years to bugger the video and then they released it right after witnesses started testifying that the Flight 77 flight path was really north of the Citgo. This corrupt Bush Regime manufactures evidence every time we turn around, from the non-existent Iraqi WMDs to the fake Osama videos and from the nonexistent 9-11 hijackers to these few altered or manufactured Pentagon security videos. To quote another famous piece of evidence:

The last I read there was a gag order. :unsure:

There is NOTHING definitive whatsoever in that video but Dylan's response has "some people" up in arms because Dylan with all of his influence has decided to break his silence about the north side claim in support of data supplied by the perps that has been proven to be manipulated.

He has done this just after he expressed support for Lloyd's legitimacy by asserting a proven incorrect speculative version of his story asserted by Russell about a year ago BEFORE we had Lloyd's first-hand account or any of the independently verified evidence at all in this regard.

This is a very significant and very public break from his previous stand-offish approach to this critical data.

He has refused to openly discuss the north side claim, Lloyd, or the C-130/2nd plane story until this break in silence.

Yet he has still failed to engage in open discussion/debate of the issue as of yet.

I am sorry to say that it makes me have serious reservations about the content of the Pentagon section of FC.

The fact that you don't know proves my point perfectly.

I will agree though that I 100% refuse to deny reality.

Man the guns!

Seriously Craig, you are ridiculous with your refusal to <accept> reality.

Come back?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dylan,

What am I looking for exactly <in this security video>?

I will agree that I 100% refuse to deny reality.

Why do you keep deleting and repeating your post?

That's basically what it comes down to. I don't see much of anything from this tape, and even it wasn't altered it would take another 10,000 page NIST type of report to prove anything.

With the FC releasing a month away are we to assume you are not representing a "North Side Approach"?

Has Alex Jones seen the PentaCon and/or any of the eyewitness video from the Citgo Station?

This is the way I see it:
1 - Mutually Exclusive: Plane with is either on the North or South side.
a. Plane was on North Side; Citgo witnesses were not mistaken or lieing.
i. South side Evidence must be fraudulant.
Light poles were staged. Cab driver was part of the fraud.
Light poles were thrown, broken, and/or explosives used to remove them as the plane flew by, and one hit the Cab's window.

b. Plane was on the South Side; Plane did hit the Light poles.
i. All the witneses were mistaken and/or lying

2 - Not Mutually Exclusive: 2 "Planes" flew over at the same time from the North and South.
a. Both the Citgo witnesses and the Cab Driver stories are accurate.

(I can clean this up, but hopefully you get my point)

Only evidence I seen so far has been for 1a Mutually Exclusive and Citgo Witnesses are very creditable. Creditable enough to overshadow the sketchy south side "evidence" by far. IMHO.

Maybe because I want you to stop burrying my post which asks...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dylan,

What am I looking for exactly <in this security video>?

can someone highlight where the 'shadow' or 'reflection' is... i cant see fk all and i been staring at it for 20mins lol :S

:D

I never really analyzed this video till today(and whoever enhanced it.. thank you)... however i have read the arguments plenty going back to the old forum...

Is this "shadow" supposed to be when the cam in the lower right dims the whole picture for one frame? Is this the "shadow" Russ and others have been arguing proves is AA77 on the south path?

I certainly hope that is not that case and im missing something where it shows a real shadow in all cam views.. or other cam views at least.. considering the amount of arguing regarding this issue.

If those who argue the diming of one frame in the lower right cam is in fact the "shadow" they have been trying to argue to support the govt story flight path... i have just realized a whole new level of "agenda".


Please tell me that one frame dim in the lower right cam is not what is being argued here..and that there is a more clear shadow... and if so.. please point me to it...

yep Rob, just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any worse........

holy crap! Really? The dim of the lower right cam for one frame is what is being argued here? Really?


wait.. let me get the smilie i need for this argument from our forum...





there.... thats better...

keep in mind that this video has also already been proven to have been highly manipulated and the 3 camera angles that would confirm the south side approach have been totally removed.

good thing the gov removed all the footage that supports the claims made by themselves and russell, dylan, raven, etc but left them 1 frame which darkens thus proving the south side approach.

now this manipulated bullshit video can be used to disprove the eyewitness testimony of 5 (and growing) highly credible eyewitnesses. i just can't wait to see what happens when CIT discloses the newest confirmation. Personally I hope Craig flies out to DC to get it on film first.

I wouldnt be so quick to lump in Dylan with this issue. He certainly hasnt (yet) given a definitive position on this matter in my opinion. However, the hints that are being dropped seems to be a bit misguided. No doubt by talking with those who do not have the experience nor the credentials to weigh in on the matter.

We shall see when LCFC comes out. Im looking forward to it. Hopefully it wakes up many more...

:)

Sgt. Lagasse: "It's not like there was a shadow of a wing tip (chuckles) going over here. It was far enough out that I could see it because the one thing that made me realize what kind of plane it was, was being able to see both engines. You know? It wasn't obscured at all."

Dom, it is only one angle from the Citgo that they removed.

As for the video,

There are a few things "they" are using to support the official flight path...

-The dimming of that one south side. (which makes no sense, as others have pointed out how the other cams do not show the shadow)
-The flash on the North side canopy/car rim (which is inconclusive)
-The increase of light on the "EAST ENTRANCE" or Ssuth side entrance cam.
-A ways back, I noticed a couple of dots that pop up in the street in the south side camera. John Farmer points this out as well. It is inconclusive and could actually just be a flaw in the video.

Video of this nature is useless as evidence of anything. You might as well be reading tea-leaves. Anyone can project whatever meaning they want onto it.

I don't see a "shadow" at all. What I see in the bottom right quadrant is an adjustment in the camera aperture for one frame. Less light is entering the camera. Note the windows to the right of the frame -- how so much light is coming through them you can't see the exterior but then, in that frame, due to the adjustment of the aperture, you can see out the window to details that were being 'whited out' due to the glare.

Now, that is what I see. Others see a shadow. How would one conclusively prove one or the other with only THIS as a basis.

The fact is, however, this is not the only evidence we have -- and if it were it wouldn't prove much if anything. But we have witnesses, credible witnesses, and their testimony. We have an FDR file that doesn't account for the physical damage path and looks, itself, to have been manipulated (evidence of a cover-up) -- among other things and more is coming all the time.

We don't need to peer into tea leaves, folks. There is much more conclusive evidence to be addressed.

I mean, what is going on here? Are they holding Korey hostage?

The flash is clearly from the car... was this an argument as well?

agreed...

Since i been learning film production.. anyone who has the knowledge in such a field could easily determine such a scenario you suggest...

although.. im an amature in filmaking...

however.. i have seen many aircraft shadows pass me by daily.. especially when i worked ramps for many years at the airport pumping gas working my way into the cockpit.

Considering the above and the fact i can safely say im an expert in situational awareness... that dimming effect in the lower right cam is not a "shadow" of AA77 or any other aircraft.

I cannot believe for the life of me why a "photographer" such as Russ would use such a dubious circumstance to actually argue this video in support of the govt story..


(well.. yes i can)

Yes, they claim it as proof the plane flew on the south side.

I should think this whole "shadow" business could be clarified once and for all fairly easily working backward by someone with 3-d modeling skills (I don't have them).

A shadow is very specific thing -- an area where light is being blocked. The shadow's size and position is determined by the size of the object relative to its distance from the ground or object onto which the shadow is cast and the position of the light source.

In this instance, we know the precise position of the gas station's south side. We know the precise time/date. The exact angle of the sun can be calculated. We also know the exact south flight path (if we accept the debris field as corroborating evidence) -- thus we know the exact line the plane would have to be traveling. We very nearly know the exact altitude of the craft as it would have to be at that moment to fit the debris field. It should be relatively easy to model this and show precisely where the shadow would had to have been at the exact moment. Either it would cast a shadow on the station or it wouldn't. End of story.