This thread will open up the conversation on the Citgo video. It is written with the understanding of what the FDR says and that some people believe all the physical damage is faked. None of it is putting forth anything as a fact but just pointing out observations and raising questions. Some of the graphics will be based on flight path estimations based on a general heading of 61.5 and the general mechanical damage.

This analysis is based on the 16 mb .wmv video I received directly from Judicial Watch and have made available in the separate download thread. I suggest if you want to follow this and test it all you should download it and have the latest version of Windows Media Player to view it in full screen.

It will take about 3 or 4 posts over the evening to lay this out. Then things can evolve from there. The first thing to do is understand the Citgo layout and camera placement.



This is an aerial to see the Citgo in context to the Pentagon and the first part of the mechanical damage path. The flight path is out of perspective because of the aerial angle and the lens but gives the basic idea. You can see how everything is tilted up.



This is a view of the Citgo taken facing north (it seems the door on this side they refer to as the "East Entrance" on the video). You can see the condition of the foreground mound then. The bridge mound is separate and is marked clearly in one of the photos below. You may have to refer back and forth between all of these.



This is a sketch of the overall outside camera situation. The red dots are the six cameras I was able to locate in photos. Only three of them are represented in the video. The pump numbers on the left you can figure out from the photos. On the right I don't know which ones are 9/10 and 11/12. There may be a clue later.



This is a photo of the north canopy taken while we were in DC. You can see the area of the camera that has been removed since 9/11. There is no view from this camera represented in the Citgo video. The other camera pointing toward the door is also not represented in the video. The camera hidden up on the roof of the store is the camera labeled "Dual Pump Side" in the video. There is a corresponding camera under the south canopy. You can see the flight path and the impact labeled for reference.



This is the south canopy or what it appears they refer to as the "East Entrance". There is a camera up on the roof of the store just like under the north canopy outside the left edge of this photo. It is labeled "Single Pump Side" in the video. The camera in the middle is not represented in the video. The camera on the right is the camera labeled "East Entrance" in the video. The flight path as well as pole 1, pole 2, and the damaged tree are in this photo (the red line goes accross the top of the tree). The bridge mound is also indicated.



From the aerial and the compass you can see why they may refer to this as the "East Entrance". The floor plan is from memory. I went into the store to get a drink. I was declined since I didn't have military ID. I had to walk around the registers to a cooler that was sort of behind the register. I vaguely remember an office or maybe restrooms there too. Later in the video you can see what I believe is the manager walk out from that area. The cooler was blocking the light of the south window. If anybody has more details on the inside of the store - please correct me.

The three red dots refer to the three interior camera views represented in the video. They are "Register One" which is on the left, "Register Two" on the right and "Sales Floor" which appears to be down the center of the store. In the next post I will show how all this looks from the monitor and break down the views from the cameras.

To Russell :

I really admire all the energy and devotion that you put through these Posts. However I think you've just started another endless debate on countless details...You're a perfectionist , that's ok so am I !

Something hit me while reading your explanation. : ( If I understand well )

:blink: :blink:

Why search more ? THIS video is the ONE needed to see the path or / and the impact. THIS video is certainly THE evidence the FBI was in a hurry to confiscated ! If I remember , they were there in matter of few minutes after impact ?

I mean , the other views have been released , especially BECAUSE THIS video was not on it ! And do you know why they ( CITGO ) had removed it since 2001 ??

It is so clear to me that the FBI released some "candies" for perfectionnist like you to have an horrible headache try to decorticated all infinite details, while the truth is SOOO evident. Fisrt the parking booth tapes... Awfull resolution and probably manipulated frames to clearly show nothing ! ( From a side or the other ).

Then the CITGO tapes... WITHOUT THE TAPE needed. THE one that could ( and more than probably ) catch the whole thing !

The FBI admitted they have 85 videotapes... Let's say only 10 % , No let's say 5 % of them did have important information. You end up with 4 tapes ! Where's the other 2 ?? ( Perhaps I'd like to see them all !! )

Why can't we see THIS camera tape :



Perhaps , the reason is clear enough for me...

[hmm]

Thanks.

There are some interesting tidbits in the video later.

Remember out of 6 exterior videos only three are represented in the video. Not just the removed one is missing.

The video was actually not confiscated in minutes as we have been led to believe. They were evacuated probably around 10:15 when the fireground and all the way up to the Annex was because of reports of a second plane. The manager said for a "couple of hours" and when they returned the video was taken "within minutes".

I don't know why they were removed. There was this one and the Sheraton. The Doubletree implied they had camera changes too since 9/11. I was in the security room on the trip and there was no Pentagon view on their monitors. One theory is that after the event the Pentagon realized they had cameras pointed at them and made the changes. The other theory is they are hiding something. Keep in mind we have the Doubletree video coming by November 9th.

The VDOT does not record any of their cameras. That is confirmed.

We'd all like to see them all.

Nice thread, can't wait to see the next post. [cheers]

This is what the FBI had to say about the Citgo video:

"Among the eighty-five (85) videotapes described in paragraph 11, above, I located one videotape taken from closed circuit television at the Citgo Gas Station in Arlington, Virginia. Because of its generally poor quality, the tape was taken to the FBI's Audio-Video Image Analysis Unit (AVIAU).....to determine that the videotape did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001." (Maguire Documents)
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/video.html

The Citgo and the Doubletree videos were exempt from the first FOIA because they did not show the "impact". But some video out there from a hotel was viewed in "shock and horror" by the employees and may get released. My guess it is the Doubletree. It may also be a total dud too. We'll see - less than a month.

Some general facts about CCTV's:

1) They have motion detection. This is done by contrast changes and has a sensitivity setting.

2) The sensitivity for outside cameras is generally set low to allow for light changes and background activity. They also have variable frame rates within one system. 2 fps is fairly common for outside cameras. 3.75 fps is typical for registers because that is what is required for recording fast hand movement. Very busy cameras may also be set low so it is not always active.

3) If no activity is detected then it will slow down the frame rate to save recording space and when activity is detected it speeds back up.

Google combinations of "security - CCTV - VMD - motion detection" and you will find various articles. Variable frame rate or VFR is another topic to search with the above words.

It is hard to tell exactly what the parameters of the Citgo system were but it appears they have a flashing "ACTION" indicator when motion is detected. It also appears the outside cameras are less sensitive than inside especially the "East Entrance" camera. The inside cameras seem to record action faster as well. My GUESS is the inside is 3.75-4 fps kicking down to two when no action is evident. And the outside cameras are 3 fps kicking down to 1-2 fps when no action is present. A firm knowledgeable opinion is appreciated if somebody knows.

Now let's relate the screen to the various locations around the store.



This is the whole screen. I don't know what the large numbers for date/time are. They appear to be imposed on the screen. It may be a cataloging number from the FBI. I can't imagine they would have a future date or block so much of the screen in the native video.

The video time in this is 9:36:19 (most times I list will be specified as the .wmv file times for ease of finding) and the date is correct. I wondered if they would have a separate recording for each camera but I have decided not. Judicial watch received a single VHS cassette as an original. I can't imagine they would have that many VCR's recording so they must just record the monitor screen.

They have small numbers 1-7 on the screens but I have labeled them A-G since there will already be so many different numbers discussed. You can see in this screen none of the "ACTION" indicators are active. As you watch the video notice them going on and off based on activity.



In "A" we can see it is simply a recapitulation of the whole monitor. Look close and you can see it is exactly the same.



This is a very important one to understand. The shiny part at the top is the north canopy ceiling reflecting. The roof is the roof of the store under the canopy. The door is what they refer to as the "East Entrance" (it is hard to read on the frame but I am pretty sure that's what it says). Go back up and you can see this camera under the south canopy pointing at the door from above the single pump side.

From inside the store it is the door just below the "G" in the bottom right frame. The camera here is set to very low sensitivity. People go in and out but for the whole video the "ACTION" indicator does not flash until after the impact and somebody runs inside. When viewing the video in motion you can see the cross over of people from this camera back and forth from "G" or "Register One" on the bottom right video frame.



This is the "Dual Pump Side" and is taken from the camera up under the north canopy on top of the store roof. I believe the white car that pulls up under here to pump 1/2 at 1:35 .wmv file time is Pentagon Police officer William Lagasse. After the impact he whips a backing out maneuver and turns out rapidly towards the Pentagon. Notice the angle and direction of the sun here. Also, watch the video and focus on just this window and notice the behavior of reflections on the canopy ceiling as cars pass by exiting the station.



"D" is looking at the "Single Pump Side" from the camera under the south canopy up on the roof of the store. Somewhere in the general area that is indicated is the "East Entrance" camera facing the door. If you watch this camera when the "ACTION" indicator is not flashing it seems cars in the background skip which might indicate a 1-2 fps rate when it is "inactive". When it is actively flashing, cars seem to flow by pretty well. Notice this side is in the direct sunlight.

"E" is down the center of the store. At first it was actually hard to tell in some ways if it is at the back of the store facing the registers or above the registers facing the back of the store. There is very little activity in it but around 4:53 .wmv time you can see somebody cross the store in the two register cameras and they are down low in the front of this one indicating it is above the registers looking back.



These are the two register cameras. You can see how the views are split when you watch the clerks go back and forth or customers walk by.
The one on the left is near the dual pump side of the store. The one on the right exits to the single pump side of the store and the door is the one you see in the "East Entrance" camera. You can correlate them by watching people go in and out of the store and see them go from "B" frame to "G" frame and from "G" to "B".

One key thing is the lighting difference between the two. Notice how the left is a bit darker. That side of the canopy is in the shade and the beverage cooler is shading the north (west) exterior window behind the register. It is labeled in the diagram in the first post of this thread. The right side is brighter because the south (west) window behind the register is not blocked and the single pump side of the store is in the direct sun.

Watch the video a couple of times and bounce back and forth until you see it all connected. It will help later.

So to just make sure, the I-395 tape that the screen shot above shows, does not have record capabilities what so ever. Correct ? That means the screen shot above is from a live feed ?

Just want to make sure of this although I think I know.

Logic,

They are downloaded via a web service.

Here: http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-mainWEbcams.asp

The VDOT doesn't record them because of all the people wanting them for accidents etc. They do have an incident record button if they choose to. Of course that would have been after the fact.

I got to see the control center and a demo. I don't doubt them on the recording.

Russell

I watched each frame for the entire length of the video a few times. The first interesting thing happens around 4:42 .wmv file time and 9:40:37 video timer. Watch the top middle window or the "East Entrance" wall very carefully. It gradually brightens then peaks in brightness and fades back to normal. Here are the stills.



Put your video on full screen in a dim room and set it to 4:40 .wmv file time, hit play and watch only that frame. You can clearly see the lighting change for a second. Keep looking at it and you will see somebody run into the store in a white shirt. That was enough to trigger the contrast sensitive motion detector for the first time on that frame. Then they bring everybody out of the store. That flash on the store wall was linked to the running and the group response. Now run it again and look for any other explanation. Also, note that all "ACTION" indicators are flashing simultaneously for the first time in the whole video.

Even the sales floor video does. Remember it is more sensitive than the outdoor ones and nobody walks through the frame. It responds to contrast and light changes. Watch it closely in the back right window where the flash occurred on the outside wall. What caused it to activate?

If you want to see where this is going which I will detail later, then go back to 4:40 .wmv time again, start the video and watch it again. Right when the flash begins on the wall let your eyes drift to the top right frame or the dual pump side and watch that brilliant flash engulf the back of a car that is stationary. The car moves immediately after that in a hurry. Test it.

Now go back to 4:40 .wmv file time, hit play and watch just that screen. Do it again and right when you see the flash on the car let your eyes drift to the bottom right frame and watch that side of the store darken for a second as what I believe is the shadow of the aircraft passes over. Go back and watch just that again.

Now that you are familiar with the frames and timing go back and watch the sequence a few times. South wall flash, car flash and shadow almost simultaneous. Then look at the store clerk run out and the chaos. Then watch Lagasse peel out of there.

All of those events are related. Not coincidence.

I have some more graphics to show the sequence including plane position, sun angle and shadow. I believe it is a reflection off the wing that causes the wall flash and the car flash. Then the shadow passes over. I will do it tomorrow after the accusations of making stuff up and being disinformation. Or maybe I will wake up to an explanation for three anomalous events occurring simultaneously with a group reaction immediately following.

All I really ask is that you watch it a few times and think about it before lashing out!

Russell

MODIFICATION:

I received an email about the car reflection. I had went frame by frame to determine the car movement in relation to the flash. The email suggested a slight car movement prior to the flash.

I did a pixel by pixel overlay of a frame before and the flash frame and it appears there was a slight rolling forward of the car. The flash frame is more distorted than the previous frame so it is hard to tell exactly how much.

It appears to be about the distance from the front of the tire rim to the back of the rim. Maybe that was enough to reflect the sun. The flash seems pretty brilliant compared to the other car reflections that occur there.

So, that one may have an explanation.

For the shadow in the bottom right frame (Register Two) you can also watch it in the top left frame of the video (the one that is the whole monitor - behind the zeroes in 12:00) and see it more distinctly.

Talk about chasing shadows...lol


Nice theories Russ...

[cheers]

Can you explain the illumination of the outside wall and the darkening of the store followed by the crowd reaction and all monitors going to "ACTION"?

Are they not related?

Godzilla and King Kong fighting?


:D


just bustin on ya dude...

We all know an airplane was there...

As Erin says...




until then you're spinning your wheels.

[cheers]

I agree with show me the plane.

From the trip we all agreed there was a plane in the area.

We just disagreed on impact versus flyover.

I believe the illumination of the wall, the shadow and the associated crowd reaction imply a plane flying through that area as we established on the trip.

But with a sun angle that would cause the illumination on the wall as well as the shadow passing over the store it puts the plane on the south side of the Citgo in line with the mechanical damage path.

It obviously doesn't prove an impact but it confirms the 61.5 heading of the aircraft.

61.5 degrees is NOT a heading. (told you this many times).

A shadows does not confirm a true course.. unless you enjoy chasing shadows. The possiblities are endless for shadows.


Show me a plane hitting the pentagon. period. (and the poles while you're at it)

All else is fluff, speculation and conjecture.

Ok - what is the proper terminology for the 61.5 degrees?

I notice the indicator on the animation says 70?

Last time you'll have to explain it. It came from the .csv file right?

True Course.

It is represented as "Track angle True" in the csv file.

Observations:

The "shadow" visible in cash register 2 monitor is NOT visible from any other monitor including the single pump view monitor that:

A. Clearly shows the pumps with sun on them.

B. Would have most definitely also had the shadow over it if the plane was on the official story flight path side.

This pretty much rules out the assertion that it is a shadow or is further evidence that the plane was on the other side of the station as BOTH citgo eyewitnesses have asserted.

Especially since there is a canopy over that window that would have blocked any shadow anyway.

Circled here:



The refelection from the rim of the car on the double pump side monitor is also visible reflecting off the underneath of the canopy and is extremely bright there as well.

Since the shadow is obviously not a shadow.......perhaps the "flash" is a reflection from the actual explosion at the pentagon or simply from the sun itself off the rim of the car. This is strong evidence that it didn't come from the wing of the plane.

Not to mention it doesn't make much sense that the plane would simultaneously cast a shadow and a bright reflection.

Bottom line......I find it quite odd how ANYONE that believes 9/11 was an inside job would trust the information derived from a video that was suppressed for 5 years, is such bad quality, and has the most relevant camera angles ommitted!

The release of this incomplete low quality video that shows nothing conclusive is MORE evidence that a 757 did not impact the pentagon.

I believe the Citgo video was released SPECIFICALLY because of the Citgo witness and his account.

I no longer believe this as a possibility, but as an unforunate reality. A counter chess move if you will. I have more reason to believe this now but can't elaborate on it at this point. But I will in the near future.

I also believe that the video is laid out in a purposeful design as to draw focus to specific areas. For instance, the "DOUBLE PUMP SIDE" is the largest view given. Why? It could it be because the double pump side is the largest section of the gas station, but wouldn't the "SALES FLOOR" be considered a more important, prominent view? Is that the "normal" view on their monitor? Or is there more than one monitor? This would seem to be the case since half the camera views are not shown. My point is, it seems they really wanted to make a point of showing the LEFT side of the gas station (perhaps to discredit the Citgo witness account).

The main point I want to make is this about "shadows" and "reflections". None of it is near conclusive. The "SALES FLOOR" and the "SINGLE PUMP SIDE" show NO shadows or reflections.

This is a clever trick in response to the Citgo employee's account. Simply more bad video with a few editing/graphic/lighting tricks, just like the others. Perhaps something more complex.

Look at the date of my Citgo Witness thread ( My first phone call was the week of labor day), and then look at the date of the Citgo video release. As stated earlier, "Not coincidence".

I am NOT deterred or discouraged. I only know I (WE) are on the right track. I know what that employee told me and I know he is telling the truth, no matter what details happen to be conveniently found. And trust me, more is coming.

All I can say is that things are going to get very interesting before the year is up.

"Then watch Lagasse"


Yes, watch him...carefully. From 1:33 on until 5:03. Then go listen to his interview, then read all of his accounts. Then remember that he too placed himself on the right side of the plane (starboard), like our Citgo witness...WHY?!?!?!. Perhaps it's the only thing he was telling the truth about. Was he in his car or outside of it? He mentions that the "wing vortices knocked me into my vehicle". Although our witness didn't feel the same turbulence he spoke of.

This is probably stating the obvious, but had the plane flown over the Citgo wouldn't the shadow of the plane be visible in the dual pump frame ©?

Exactly.

Or on the single pump frame or both.

But it's not visible AT ALL in any of the other views other than the cash register 2.

It's not a shadow.

It's merely one of the many anomalies in that extremely crapy quality video.

There is no shadow because the plane flew over on the opposite side just as BOTH eyewitnesses claim.

Lyte,

Look at the fact that when the illumination hits the wall that the only camera flashing "ACTION" is Register Two or the bottom right one. We do not know for sure what the reduced fps is for any of those cameras. Especially in a multi-camera system they almost certainly would have used that variable frame rate mode to save recording space. It is obvious they have motion detection which is linked to variable frame rate. The single pump side could have been at a lower frame rate and out of sync with the Register Two view.

Look at the single pump side and you can see somebody there kind of jerky but when the "ACTION" light starts to flash as they run for the store it records more rapidly. I believe that camera missed the Shadow. Are you saying the darkening of that frame in coordination with the wall illumination and the crowd reaction is just a coincidence? Look at it in the small top left window.

The canopy does not block a shadow since shadows are cast to the ground. It would have "run up" the wall. The shadow that hit there appears to be the bulk of the fuselage. There would be no shadow at all if the plane was to the north of the Citgo or a illumination on the wall.

The car flash is extremely bright and timed within the events, but like I said it has to be mentioned the car rolled about the distance of the hub which makes it possible that it is just the sun. It is also possible that it was the aircraft reflection even though the car is moving. If the car were 100% stationary there would be no question. I will post a couple of graphics later.

The illumination happens before the shadow so it is not the explosion at the wall. It also has the quality of a bright focal reflection. If it were the explosion I would expect to see evidence of it in the dual pump side which I don't see.

I highly doubt that they would manipulate subtle little things into this video. If they were going to do that then show the missing camera view and put something blurry in it to look like a plane or show an explosion flash at least.

Like I said, this does not prove an impact but I feel it does demonstrate the plane was on the south of the Citgo. I still believe it indicates the witness is telling the truth but is combing the experience of the shadow with a brief sighting of the aircraft on the mechanical damage path before disappearing behind the bridge mound. The shadow went right to the left of the bridge mound.

If that is him by the pumps he said he was near and him that ran into the store it would tell us a lot. Do we know if that was him running into the store?

Incorrect.

The register one monitor starts flashing "action" again just BEFORE you see the "shadow" in the register 2 monitor yet no shadow is visible in register one.

Although the dual pump monitor did just stop flashing action just before the shadow....it does show the rim of the moving tire relfection SIMULTANEOUSLY so naturally the camera was filming yet still no shadow is present.

You have to believe that and every other camera completely missed the shadow even register 1 that WAS flashing action therefore, yes I believe it is a coincidence or it was added. It had to be.

Shadows do not run up walls underneath canopies where there is already a shadow. Regardless.....even if they did.....that would mean the shadow would be visible in the register 1 monitor that was also active at the moment your "shadow" appears. Boldly claiming it was from the "fuselage" without a shred of evidence to back it up doesn't not make these unexplainable facts go away.

The car wheel flash happens simultaneous to the "shadow" yet no shadow is present. If the camera didn't catch the shadow it wouldn't have caught the flash.

Since of course the shadow isn't really a shadow this is simply not evidence that it wasn't from the explosion. The car reflection IS on the dual pump side. Although I do agree that it is probably just from the sun and not the explosion.

Of course you do! You automatically accept all evidence provided to us from the government as 100% valid! Nice that you think you would know what subtle details they would manipulate and why. The fact that you refuse to be skeptical about evidence as pathetic as this after 5 years yet still believe 9/11 is an inside job is utterly disingenous.

Right. So you put all stock in the fact that you see a shadow even though there isn't one AND the fact that you believe the evidence to be 100% valid which would be totally disingenous to the investigation as a whole over the fact that BOTH witnesses say otherwise and their vantage point is such that it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for them to be mistaken in this regard. Did you forget how loud the plane would be? If Lagasse actually did feel the plane like he said could he really be mistaken about this?

We do not know if that was him yet.

Go back and read what I said again. When the illumination hits the wall Register Two is the only one flashing. Register one starts flashing in between that and the shadow as somebody walks into the left side of it. I believe that is the manager coming out to see what is going on. One of the things she mentioned to me on two occasions was the loud rumbling sound. Maybe she was coming out of that area that I perceived as an office or restrooms to see what was going on. You can see her above the blurred area of the video and it looks like her.

Instead of criticising, try and explain the wall illumination and its proximity to the crowd response.

Please Russ , read this carefully...

I don't want to appear annoying or anything , but please come back on that VDOT camera for a sec.

I understand that they DO NOT actually recording everything automatically like it would on a surveillance video. Ok. That's fine... very sad , but fine.

BUT , If anybody could acces it ( like I'm doing right now ) I aslo understand that is easy information for anybody HAVING knowledge of the event to come... Ain't I'm right ?

Just needed to know the approx. time it will happen , and then record it. The frame rate appears to be around 1 frame every 3 second. Not exactly DVD quality...but better than nothing ! Good chance it had been possible to view the ACTUAL plane size before impact. ( 1 or 2 chance on 3 )

Like you explained ; the agency responsible of these VDOT don't have videotapes of what they are showing. Ok. But doesn't mean that ANY footage ( or pictures slideshow , whatever ) doesn't exist. or being impossible. We're just ain't aware of possible record. So ;

Base on these conclusions :

1) If its an inside job , then someone , somewhere probably had recorded the evidence on a computer. Assuming that some people were aware of the crash before he occurs.

2) For evident security issue ; it may be also possible that someone actually made sure on that morning that the link's been unavailable. To make sure nobody can't see from that particuliar VDOT ( # 740 on I-395 ) on that particular morning ??

3) In this case ; can it be possible to check if any record or trace or log DOES exist that can prove ( or disproove ) the above theory ( #2 ) ?

I know your present topic focus on the CITGO cameras , and Its fine ( you are doing such hard works on every topics ; I really do enjoy your perfectionnism ( good word ?? )) But to be honest ; I can't help myself... Every time I look at those VDOT 740 pictures , I can almost see it , see THAT damn plane just crossing on its way to the Pentagon !! ..If you know what I mean.

Its seem to me the perfect angle view to know the truth. I just can't think NOBODY haven't seen THE right frame. IF it WAS AVAILABLE that morning. Too bad that no tapes was recorded from VDOT. Especially that one !

Don't you agree ??

:huh:

I'm not gonna quote anybody because I don't remember exactly how it was worded, but someone said that camera wasn't working on the morning of 9/11 anyway. So nobody could access it from the internet. Is this true Russ?

Also Russ, is there another Citgo tape recording the other 4 camera angles?

Go back and read what I said again. The illumination from the car rim that reflects under the canopy on the big double pump side monitor is exactly SIMULTANEOUS to the "shadow" in the register 2 monitor.

This means the camera was running and if there was a shadow it would be visible in the double pump monitor as well.

AND.....

The register 1 monitor was "active" BEFORE the "shadow" in the register 2 monitor so naturally it should be visible in both.

But it is not.

Also....about the manager. SHE was the one to tell us that the witness saw the plane on the other side! Remember that Russell? Do you really think if she heard a loud rumbling sound that she wouldn't question it if the eye witness had seen the plane on the opposite side that she heard it?

But she did not.

It comes down to this Russell...........

We are investigating the most complex, brazen, heinous, effective, world wide psychological warfare operation in the history of mankind yet you feel compelled to accept a grainy, horrible quality, chopped up security video that was confiscated within minutes/hours, suppressed for 5 years and conveniently released (BY THE VERY PERPETRATORS THAT YOU ARE BLAMING FOR THE CRIME) literally days after a witness is reported from that location that blows their story out of the water.

You believe that a single frame of a mere "SHADOW" from ONE of the monitors in this pathetic video is enough to discredit BOTH eyewitnesses at the location. And you have the gall to suggest it would be too much of a "subtle" detail to fake even though according to you it is sufficient to discredit the witnesses!

Don't you understand how insanely contradictory this position is?

Don't you understand how foolish it is to not be skeptical of the authenticity of this video?

Why on earth would you believe the government's own video over the eyewitnesses when you supposedly believe the government is the perpetrator?

[dunno]

There were plenty of witnesses on the highway, and the path of lightpole destruction. Perhaps there were two planes or the Citgo witness is wrong. Those two possibilities are much more plausible than some guys pulling down light poles and cutting them in half with hydraulic tools and no one noticing. I say hydraulic because I can't imagine any other type of tool that could do that damage.

LT, Russ, isn't there another tape with the other cameras on it? Or was there only one VCR?

If you guys truly believe the release of the Citgo tape is a personal conspiracy against you and the Citgo witness then responding may be useless. But here we go.

Look at the video. Look at how far back under the canopy the witness was. My estimates of 1.15 seconds gave the benefit of the doubt the witness may have been near the Pentagon edge of the canopy. If the person who runs back into the store was the witness then you can imagine how restricted even that becomes. If the witness was near the door then realize that the door is not halfway through the canopy but 2/3 of the way back. Same situation.

The witness never saw the approach of the plane. They saw it this way, "No the bridge/mound was in the way" (bridge continuation raise) "It happened so fast, I see the plane, then fire and smoke". It is an inference of where it came from. The burden is on you guys. We still have no flight path diagram that can be analyzed and reconciled with a plane north of the canopy and an obstruction caused by the bridge mound. We have no graphic from the witness as indicated we would and nothing in his own words. We also know that no list of thorough questions will be facilitated for the witness to answer. You want us to believe this and Lagasse (who has effectively had his account demolished by the video) are supposed to controvert ALL other witnesses and the physical damage?

Then we have NO witnesses including the Citgo witness who report a flyover and the security cameras at the Pentagon don't record a flyover? I believe the Citgo witness is telling the truth as it has been relayed to us for him. But it is being handled so poorly by any investigative standards that all we have is a brief thread announcing the end of the Pentagon investigation - and even it's locked so that we can't respond. I guess we'll just have to wait for the evidence and the proof of the video conspiracy.

If you want to use the manager as an indicator she doesn't even glance left - she blazes directly to the south side of the store even though she was mere feet from the north door and didn't have to exit the register stand on the right.

I am finishing the shadow analysis. I have spent a fair amount of time looking into the USGS/Google discrepancies and how to reconcile them to make sure it is accurate. You haven't even analyzed the shadow yourself to prove your case. Just more rhetoric.

The difference in the Register One monitor has been explained. Go back and watch it in the top left window again. Yes - the government only embedded a shadow on one side.

Russell is a man of many contradictions, many contradictions, working tirelessly to make parts of the official government conspiracy theory work. Meanwhile he ignores facts when convenient when forging charts and arguments that supposedly debunk the work of pilots and longtime Pentagon researchers.

His behavior is indeed more complex than the trolls that normally get banned, but it is a continuation of the same theme.

Clearly the parties that pulled of 9/11 are constantly forging plans for damage control when the shit hits the fan. One of the things they will try to do when busted is admit to some things and set some folks up at that time to take the fall for those things, while denying others. What I'm saying folks is they will concede to some things and fry some of their own while doing so. They will also maintain some aspects of the official government conspiracy theory that has, clearly, been debunked. They will do this to protect some of their own. For historical examples of this in action, study Iran Contra and Watergate. Roger Noriega, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, Otto Reich, Porter Goss, and Bush 41 were all busted for certain parts of Iran Contra. All are still active in politics. They admitted to some things, they set some folks up to fall, and they hid the really bad shit and got away with it. Something similar to that can be expected as the fruits of 9/11 research. And, one might argue, that good ol' Russell is here to see what parts of the official government conspiracy theory he can get activists to buy. He's part of the damage control process. Right, Russell? A wolf in sheep's clothing? A sophisticated troll?

You know, I started to analyze that flash 4:44 (mov time) but it's just worthless in all its pixelated compressed crappyness. I don't know what anyone can possible get out of this video besides a migrane.

I would also piont out the person which parks thier car (twice) and walks under the canopy (towards the Pentagon?) between 1:34-2:13 (mov time)

bah, it's such a crappy video it boggles the mind.

It sure seems that way George.

No serious 9/11 researcher would take this video at face value.

It makes zero sense.

The content of the video alone is what proves there was ZERO reason to suppress it for this long or AT ALL yet this doesn't raise a single red flag for Russell.

He is content to accept it as 100% valid and even use it as a basis for his conclusions!

He has promised us a detailed "shadow analysis" next. Talk about obfuscation!

Back to the murder analogy....what Russell is doing with this video is pretty much the same as if you had mountains of evidence against a suspect, were 100% convinced he was guilty, but years into the investigation you agree let this suspect present brand new easily manipulated evidence that he had been withholding from you corroborating his alibi!

If you truly believe that this horrible quality, chopped up video that was confiscated within minutes/hours and suppressed for 5 years by the peretrators themselves should be analyzed as 100% authentic then you're right....there is no point resonding.

Give me a break Russell! As I said that's like trusting evidence submitted by the suspect in a 5 year long murder investigation! Even worse since this is a world wide psychological warfare operation and the perpetrators are the most adept organization at deception on earth!

Do you or do you not believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

Who had control of this video for the past 5 years before ANYONE had a chance to see it Russell? Could it beeeeeee......the perpetrators?

No it is not a conspiracy against me and Merc. It is a conspiracy against the American people and the entire world. I thought you believed that.

The citgo witness destroys the official story and so they did something about it. It's quite simple. The timing of the release of this video is uncanny.

Now here you are working overtime to defend this doctored video by claiming a single frame of a slight darkening in one view is enough to protect your precious official story and discredit all

You can't tell definitively that ANY of these people are the manager, the witness, or even Lagasse but yet you feel compelled to boldly claim it as FACT!

For shame.

This thread is fully exposing how utterly backwards your research approach to 9/11 truth is.

You can't say 9/11 was an inside job but automatically assume that all the evidence provided by the government is valid!

But you go further than that and use a maze of images and complicated analysis to make their case for them.

Too much.

George,

Insinuation and making a conspiracy out of every little thing is exactly why we are where we are in this investigation.

Do you have a website or a compilation of work that I can analyze?

Russell

Lyte,

Your rhetoric and accusations are really starting to sound a little paranoid for lack of a better word.

I'll look forward to your graphics and evidence. If you keep repeating yourself over and over about me maybe you'll get a few people to believe you.

Have you emailed Ingersoll to find out if his family owned the company that manufactured the lights used at the Pentagon to see if that's how he got access to deceive us? To take the picture of the "removal crew's" finishing touch on the VDOT pole?

Russell

Saya,

I felt the same way you do about the VDOT traffic camera. I initially went to file a FOIA on it and found out how the system works. I was forwarded to a series of supervisors who were very helpful.

I don't know if the camera was working that day or not. I also can't imagine the odds of somebody stumbling on that frame and having it saved. It is frustrating.

I imagine the perps have crystal clear footage somewhere of what happened but I also imagine we'll never see it. It has been too successful for them to keep it a mystery for the hard core conspiracy theorists to tear this investigation and other people apart.

Russell

Ben,

I don't know if they can select what camera shows on the monitor or how they decide that. I don't know if they rotate since we only had about a 5 minute window of video or what.

It seems that they just record the monitor and whatever is on it.

Russell

Ha.

Another desparate reference to an irrelevant point I made in passing.

Never did I claim that as fact and never did I imply it had any bearing on the validitiy of his photos anyway.

Keep spinning Russell but it's quite clear that any researcher with a shred of credibility would be skeptical of this video unless they support the official story.

OK - I have no credibility and am not a serious researcher.

I will be looking forward to a fully detailed and thorough evaluation of the Citgo witness in his own words with graphics so we can all understand how the case has been solved.

Do you have a time line?

Will it be supplemented by information regarding the timing of the video release and the attempts to sabotage this witness?

Am I involved?

If you feel that it makes perfect sense to take this video at face value and use that as your only approach in analyzing it then your credibility as a 9/11 truth researcher is most definitely in question.

You are quite obviously a "serious" researcher as you spend more time then anyone I have ever met on this single aspect of 9/11.

The contradictory part is you somehow trust the perpetrators to be 100% honest in regards to the evidence they present for you to anaylze!

Detailed information will be released next month and it will not be limited to the citgo witness.