Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?

[illeagle]

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...deoframes.html
I found the information about the lack of shadows interesting in this link.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...deoframes.html
I found the information about the lack of shadows interesting in this link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Look at the post directly above yours. The expanding shadow from the smoke is clearly visible just below the horizon. Your link cropped it out and claimed it didn't exist.

[madnak]

Government sure would be boring if it weren't for all the conspiracies!

[illeagle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...deoframes.html
I found the information about the lack of shadows interesting in this link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Look at the post directly above yours. The expanding shadow from the smoke is clearly visible just below the horizon. Your link cropped it out and claimed it didn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the article is referring to the lack of shadows here.

[VarlosZ]

No, they say the following: ". . . Yet the huge explosion casts no apparent shadow from the sun on the lawn below it."

Next to this statement they show the stills you just posted, in which they've cropped out the plainly visible shadows that you can see in RedBean's post in this thread.

[illeagle]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they say the following: ". . . Yet the huge explosion casts no apparent shadow from the sun on the lawn below it."

Next to this statement they show the stills you just posted, in which they've cropped out the plainly visible shadows that you can see in RedBean's post in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. But this is also in the same paragraph.
[ QUOTE ]
The uppermost swath of white in the enlargement to the right is part of the heliport, which was directly under portions of the explosion. Yet it is illuminated by direct sunlight.

[/ QUOTE ]
The images I posted are to the right of that paragraph.

I'm going to email them and tell them to correct the mistake you caught. All that matters is the truth and they need to get it right.

EDIT: Actually, mulling it over, what's the definition of "below"? You are referring to the shadow cast beside the explosion. I'm still emailing them to point out the confusion that statement can cause for people that don't understand the concept of "below".

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The uppermost swath of white in the enlargement to the right is part of the heliport, which was directly under portions of the explosion. Yet it is illuminated by direct sunlight.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

At least one part of that statement is false. Either the swath of white to which they're referring is not the heliport, or the heliport is not directly underneath the explosion. Though it's hard to be precise with such low image quality, the swath of white is significantly closer to the camera than the explosion -- I'd say 50 ft. if I had to ballpark it, but that's just a guess.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, mulling it over, what's the definition of "below"? You are referring to the shadow cast beside the explosion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The shadow from the explosion is both below and beside the smoke, of course, as it would have to be since the sunlight is coming in from an angle.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still emailing them to point out the confusion that statement can cause for people that don't understand the concept of "below".

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't condesend. The confusion over the word "below" is yours, not mine. The word means "lower than," not necessarily "directly underneath."

At best, the site is guilty of poorly wording and presenting their argument. That seems unlikely, however. The paragraph is titled "Missing Shadow From Explosion," not "Inconsistent Shadow From Explosion." They make no mention of any shadow anywhere from the explosion, and conspiculously crop out from all the photos the plainly visible shadows below the explosion.

[ QUOTE ]
All that matters is the truth and they need to get it right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think they're interested in the truth.

[CORed]

I would say that the fact that the web site doctored the pictures shows that they are much more interested in supporting their silly conspiracy theories than finding the truth.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that the fact that the web site doctored the pictures shows that they are much more interested in supporting their silly conspiracy theories than finding the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to my original post? The photo I used for my image is completely undoctored.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...deoframes.html
I found the information about the lack of shadows interesting in this link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty interesting that the government can pull off a huge conspiracy like a 9-11 but cant make a convincing photoshop.