Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd
The images in that report are most certainly not the best in terms of quality. At best they're no better than what's available on the Judicial Watch website.
|
The image in the
ASCE report is significantly better than the JudicialWatch (JW) image! Sure, both are far less than one should want, but it's clear to me that there's a large, mostly white sunlit object fitting Flight-77 criteria in the ASCE image. One should expect an internet video as provided by JW to suffer degradation. Alas, my animation suffers further degradation from JW screenshots having to be converted to GIF format, necessitated by my animation program.
Quote:
Personally, I believe they're painfully wrong in their identification, for a few of reasons:
1) To the left of what they identify as the plane, there is an object sticking above the horizon. This object forms a point, much like the vertical stabilizer of an airliner. This object is also not present in the very next frame.
|
There's no difference along the treeline I can see to indicate the vertical stabilizer, which would be just off the single frame showing Flight 77 in the video.
Quote:
|
2) The object they identify as the plane looks "wavy", suggesting some non-uniformity in the fuselage or the image. This is just not the case with an American Airlines 757, and other objects bearing straight lines do not appear "wavy" in the same image. This object, to me, matches a rapidly moving column of smoke better than a solid entity.
|
When the width of a distant bright object in a compressed digital photo is exhausted by around 3 pixels, "wavy" is plausibly attributed to format-induced degradation. There's no reason to believe Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, and there's no reason to assume it is not visible as advertised in the released Pentagon videos.
Quote:
|
3) If that white object is the plane, then what's that white stuff in the very next frame, where the plane has already impacted the building?
|
There is a "smoke" trail in the wake of Fight 77, which I suspect is ground dust drawn up into the engines. Aerial photos indicate local ground was exposed dirt, being an area under construction. While jet engines don't emit "smoke" (contrails at high elevation are a product of moisture condensation), in this case, drawing in air with massive force a few feet above dusty ground, the engines would be expected to draw in available ground-resting aerosols, depositing them along Flight 77's wake over the dusty ground. I see no data to suggest that Flight 77 is not visible in the Pentagon videos. ~Ian