Sorry for bringing this up once again, but I'm simply too slow to keep up with this forum in real time

Ian Goddard:
...but it's clear to me that there's a large, mostly white sunlit object fitting Flight-77 criteria in the ASCE image.

If you take the toppled lamp poles as an indicator for the plane's approach path, or the angle ASCE got by examining the damage to the support columns inside the building, then the port sideof the plane (left side, in case my aero/nautical terminology got sc*ewed up in my memory) is in the shadow. It cannot be mostly sunlit on 9/11 @ 9:40 AM.

Approach path was about azimuth 240deg, while the Sun was at azimuth 113deg, altitude 32deg. The view from the cockpit would have the Sun at about 2 o'clock position, while the security cam would be at about 11 o'clock. I don't think there is a way the plane would be "mostly sunlit" on the side turned towards the camera. In fact, the opposite is far more likely - the side exposed to the cam would be mostly in the shade. If anything, the polished aluminum fuselage might reflect some of the surrounding scenery, which would be mostly green and blue. The tail vertical stabilizor, on the other hand, was completely in the shadow, at least the part turned towards the cam, and was painted. I guess it would appear pretty dark on the video, just like the rest of the shadows. Also keep in mind that the plane probably traveled some 5-10 feet during the video cam exposure. It was aledgedly traveling at a speed of up to 7-800ft/s and the cam's shutter was arguably not capping the frames any faster than in 1/120th of a second. That would leave a big smudge on the original tape all on its own, regardless of cam's resolution or its focusing abilities. VerticaI stabilizer on 757 is less than 10 ft wide on top and gradually widens to above 25 feet where it attaches to the fuselage. I also find it too optimistic to expect any reflection or any special highlight from the tail's leading edge. Plane was traveling too fast and the resolution of the security cam was too poor to register a tiny line of sunlit leading edge of the tail.

There are no trees tall enough or close enough to stick out above the skyline. Definitely none on such grand scale as the dark, triangular thingy on the videos.
http://www.army.mil/Soldiers/sep2001...s/Roll4125.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2...109139f_hr.jpg
http://www.newsfollowup.com/images/d...11-0078_hi.jpg

There might not be eyewitness reports about smoke coming out of plane's engines, but I remember some reports about plane crashing on the lawn before hitting the building. Smoke might account for those reports, since there is no visible damage to the lawn itself. While this is pure speculation, there are also those pics.

Notice the leaves and other green tidbits on the tarmac at the bottom of this photo:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1.jpg

It sure seems to me like something trimmed those trees by the side of the road. As I remember, there actually were some witnesses who also mentioned this. Now notice the top of this tree/bush on the left.
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photo...-9999J-007.jpg
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pen...ages/1265a.jpg

Of course, this is still only armchair speculation, based on nothing more but a few pics, but that lite-colored top of the tree looks like the rest was chewed off by something quite large and circular. Something like a Rolls Royce RB-211 turbofan engine. The fact is that the plane's right engine would have to be pretty near this tree anyway, since one of the toppled lamp poles was standing right next to it.

Now, I don't have any particular clue about jet engines, so I can't say what amount of smoke, if any, would those leaves and branches produce. I suspect there would be some, since I've read somewhere that even relatively small birds can cause some smoke or unburned fuel mist when ingested into the engine. I'm not sure, though. Perhaps Jay or Nicolas or anyone else could provide some details about possible visual effects of a bunch of branches getting sucked into jet engines at full throttle?

Here's what I got about Pentagon videos. First off, I have no formal credentials in photo analysis or manipulation. If anything, I'm an amateur photographer and a long time Photoshop/Gimp user. What I do know, was picked up during the years mostly on the internet, from a wide range of sources, ranging from quite technical articles on aspects of space imaging, through web design, right down to "tutorials for dummies". And through about a decade of hands-on experience with the software, but dealing mostly with web graphics. Consider yourselves warned

I have recorded the footage as it appeared on may 16th on CNN over my analogue cable TV hookup. I have used the default DVD recording settings in my ATI TV tuner software, providing an MPEG-2 compression, with the size of 720x576 pixels @ 25 fps. I have extracted still frames from resulting avi using VirtualDub.

I did the next gifs with Photoshop's difference layer blending option, after which I corrected the levels, thereby enhancing the contrast. At the end I clipped the darkest pixels to eliminate noise. Files were saved with ImageReady as animated gifs, which means that full color original TV caps were converted to gif's 8-bit 255 colors. Every other pixel manipulation took place at 16-bit channel depth.

Difference blend is nothing else but simple subtraction. Each pixel's RedGreenBlue values from picture A, ie. first vidcap frame, are subtracted from RGB values of the same pixel from picture B, ie. second frame. Or vice-versa, depending on which pixel has higher values. Pixels with the same RGB values get subtracted and produce black, with RGB values of 0,0,0. The idea was to subtract similar pictures, like consequent frames from the security cam video, and only point out those pixels, where there is considerable difference between those frames. Since the only moving object in the frames is an alleged 757 and its effects, the difference blending mode would ideally cancel out all static objects. Of course there are some artifacts, due to image manipulation on the way from the original source to CNN's footage which got finally recorded on my disk. But those artifacts would more or less cancel each other out or would only produce chaotic noise.

Animations were composed in the same way. Each animation consists of 10 individual frames. First 4 frames alternate between 2 frames of the original footage. 1st and 3rd frame show the same original frame, just before the plane entered into view. 2nd and 4th frame show the same original frame where the plane is visible. Duration of each of those 4 frames is 0.5s. 5th frame lasts for 1s and shows the result of difference blending and level adjustements, along with all the noise and less prominent pixels. 6th frame, also lasting 1s, shows only the brightest 2-3% of pixels. The last 4 frames, each lasting for 0.5s, show the frame with the plane, alternately combined with the brightest pixels frame, using Photoshop's linear dodge blend mode.

Footage from the new released camera.


Footage from previously known camera.
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8...ch18bit7wf.gif

It was a bit more difficult with web based videos. Google video version is too blocky and I can't even get YouTube to work, but that's most probably my own fault. Recently provided original DoJ mpg versions proved more useful.

"New" camera. Original specs 352X240 @ 29.970 fps.
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/225...nt28bit5kl.gif


"Old" camera. Original specs 352X240 @ 29.970 fps.
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/2...nt18bit3ps.gif

Mpegs available here, each over 30MB:
http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-2.mpg
http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-1.mpg

Those two animations were made in the same way as previous ones.

They all show very similar features. Even when one takes different video frames and tries them in different combinations. I tipically took two different avi (or mpg) frames of the same original Pentagon cam frame. That means I started off with four pictures - two for the frame with the plane and two for the frame just prior to it. Every combination of a plane frame with a planeless one, produced very similar features. Animations only show one combination for every source. I actually did at least 4 combinations for every source. (I can provide original psd files if anyone wants them.) Other combinations came out very similar to those provided in animations. Even my CNN capture produced similar features as the original DoJ mpgs. This means that whatever is on those frames, is an original feature, which was not produced by my image manipulation.

It's quite obvious that there is a silhouette of something triangular above the skyline. Footage from the new cam also shows that there is something infront of the white, misty thing. Whatever that is, sure looks like smoke to me.

IMO the new cam captured the whole plane in plain view. Double pun intended. Silhouette is there, size does fit a jetliner, there is even the tail. Yes, there is a tail on both cameras. Of course all this is inconclusive by itself, because there are no marks visible on the plane and no windows with terrified faces behind them, hands holding up their IDs and passports, so that CTs would be satisfied. Why does it seem like you expected something like that on film, turbonium?
But there is still a chance that the original released footage has been faked. I'll leave that for philosophers or some other day. It's 4AM over here and I need some sleep.