Pentagon smoke screen ?




Look at the smoke in the upper portion of both pictures

Does it look the same ?

Now look at the smoke in the lower right of the second picture

Does it look photoshopped ?

definatly no photo expert, but the smoke look a bit flimsey and not thick enough on both pictures at the top, and the smoke bottom right doesnt look right either.

Hey. These pics were edited for visualization and the resolution`s too low to examine whether something with the smoke could be prepared. You should look at the original hi-res-versions. These pics are not new. They were partly photographed bei U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Jason Ingersoil and are widely known.

Please check for high-res pics:

- http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen...te-hte-def2.jpg

- http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen...te-hte-def1.jpg

- http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/sres.pl?Lb...ref=defenselink

- http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/sres.pl?Lb...ref=defenselink

- http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...-8006R-002.html

ADDED: Oops, the .mil-links do not work (from my PC). The "mighty Librarian Sanders" has these Pentagon-Pics in hi-res...but I don`t now if they`re already online.

ADDED: The smoke on the right in the mentioned pic above seems to be the mix of fire smoke and the vaporized jet of water. The smoke above reflects the sun light as it crosses the shadow of the roof`s top border an perhaps the contenting water drops. The pic might be photographed by a tele lens, which means that different air layers maybe not as distinguished as in 1:1 view - that makes it more difficult to examine more on the basis of one pic.

Please tell me, if the pic has been "photoshopped", what would be the advantage in doing so? What do yout think this could proof? Any further hypothesis? Thanks.

I think the top picture is from a composite that was made up of a bunch of pictures, if I'm not mistaken (not really sure though) - so it'd be hard to make any conclusions based on it IMO

Thanx for the replys

lederhosn: thank you for the hi-res pics

Sanders: The brown area was added to show location [diffrent perspective]

In spite of the graphics cluttering it up, the blue part is a single picture [taken from a single location] IMO

The top part is definately the same. Look at the smoke arround the third window from the left, top floor. Smoke to the right of that is clearly the same IMO

I'll try this again with the hi-res pics

If kimmy's pic [the blue part] is a single pic then the 'official' pic is a fraud.


This was posted by 'kimmy' on April 25, 2006

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=2826

2/3 down the page if you want to see it full size

I emailed him and asked for a copy without graphics but have not received a reply

Your thoughts ?

In any case, the bottom part is the best pic of the damage.

If it was compiled, [bottom part photoshopped onto bottom part] from where ?

This is pointlessness. Both of the first two images have been altered, as lederhosn has mentioned. They have lines on them. Doh! Any conclusions which might be drawn from analysing them and comparing them with each other are pointless. Pretty much everything of this nature which I've seen (showing the damaged area and surroundings) is a composite image. Get the originals, and then you've got something to work with (maybe). But, if you want my opinion on it, the bottom right of both images are not the same (look at the spools' positions), so any argument about the smoke being photoshopped is moot.

Since all photos of the Pentagon have smoke and/or water spray obscuring significant portions of the front wall there is no single picture that can show all of the impact damage. Thus many researchers have made composites of several photos to show all of the damage. The top photo may be one of them. All honest authors who have done this will note that theirs is indeed a composite of more than one photo.

Others have put the engines further to the right of where this photo puts them, the right engine impacting where the ceiling of the first floor(floor of the second) is badly dented just to the right of the reels. The port engine going under the ceiling of the first floor and the starboard engine hitting the ceiling would be consistent with a slight bank to port that some witnesses reported.

I'm no photo expert but i have looked very carefully at the top photo and there's no sign that it is a composite [the blue part]. It is unfortunate that it has been garbaged up with graphics so try to disreguard them with your minds eye. Consider the location of the photographer. There's no difference in the angle anywhere in this picture.

[the spools are at a diffrent angle in the lower photo and are part of the smoke overlay that covers up the 1st floor damage] IMO

I have not seen a picture of the damage to the first floor from this angle in any other photograph, have you [anybody] ?

Does anybody know who 'kimmy' is or how to get in touch with him ?

Criticism welcome, if i can't convince you guys, i won't have any luck with the skeptics.

Chris

ETA: Just found this: [anybody know where the un edited version of this is ?]

I was going to post about the misaligned wall on the left side, but that seems to be there in the hi res. pic as well. So are the spool positions and the smoke. The two below are probably what you are looking to analyse for potential photoshopping.
archive image 1
archive image 2

Waterdancer: Thanx once again

kimmy's composit used the top portion of image 1 [your post]

............................. the bottom portion of image 2 [your post]

...and the center portion of this



Excellent work, i must say.

Mo betta like this