Why Does The Citgo Video, contradict the North side claim?

Here's why.

3MB Animated GIF:
(Posted Image)

Here's the frames of interest:

(Posted Image)
(Posted Image)
(Posted Image)

How does a plane flying on the North side cast a shadow and cause reflections that correspond with a plane flying on the South side?

The answer cannot be "the video is fake" You have to do better than that.

Oh you mean the video that was released 10 days after I spoke with Robert, 5 days after I posted what he had told me?

(Posted Image)

You mean to tell me that you trust video that was held for over 5 years and released 5 days after I spoke with a Citgo employee who blows the whole thing wide open?

Faked? Dylan, Russell already proved that they removed a camera the day of 9/11 and the video and released the footage WITHOUT said camera's view.

PROVING THE CITGO VIDEO WAS TAMPERED WITH AND THEY MANIPULATED WHAT WE ARE SEEING.

Russell continues:

Now realize......when Russell made this post on September 5th 2006, the CITGO video had not been released and it was also the first day that Merc had posted about our initial contact with Robert Turcios confirming the statement by his manager Barbara that he had seen the plane on the north side.


But guess what?

The government conveniently and suspiciously released the CITGO video a mere 10 days later on September 15th, 2006!


The release of this data poses SERIOUS problems for the official story in light of the research that Russell had just reported.

Why?

Because THEY MANIPULATED THE DATA TO REMOVE THE VIEW OF THE CAMERAS THAT HAD A VIEW OF THE PENTAGON THAT RUSSELL HAD JUST PROVEN WERE REMOVED AFTER THE ATTACK!

(Posted Image)

I hope this not going in FC, Dylan. Because we will prove how you are inaccurate every step of the way.

The answer is, you have not accounted for the sun's angle or a hundred other little details. In reality, careful anaylsis of the solar angle, angle of wall, height of other obstacles, gives incidental evidence of both the northern and southern flight paths.

Neither is conclusive, but the case can be made for either. If you are serious in your inquiry (I suspect you are not), then you can find some rather indepth that I speak of here.

Citgo Video Analysis

Not when the video has been proven to be manipulated/altered before and after its released.

Not when all the witnesses at the Citgo did not see ANYTHING fly on the south side of the station.

The plane and the plane only was on the north side of the Citgo.

This was clearly a hasty, desperate response and poor attempt by the perps to discredit Robert Turcios AND the north side flight path.

Hmmmmmm.....

Let me think for a moment.

Should we trust genuine witnesses who can prove they were there and independently corroborate each other or should we trust data that was sequestered and quietly released by the perps with dubious timing that has been proven to be manipulated?

I don't know.

It's a rough decision.

I've always preferred the authenticity of witness statements over 2 or 3 second video snippets from 9/11 because you never know if the clips have been manipulated. That's why I don't like the arguing of the no-planers.

But I can only speak for myself.

Absolutely.

But this data is MUCH more dubious than any "video snippets from 9/11" because it was completely controlled by the government after being confiscated within a couple of hours, sequestered for 5 years, released 10 days after we announced the first north side evidence, and has been already PROVEN to have been manipulated.

Dylan,

Do you or do you not see how Russell have proven this evidence was tampered with?

So let me make sure I understand this Dylan........


You don't consider this video to be the least bit suspicious even though 3 camrea angles have been removed from it which would confirm your south side approach?

You take this as a legitimate piece of evidence even though the camera's that would have captured the image of the plane on the side you believe it to be on are all removed from the video?

Really?

That must explain why they're withholding all the other video evidence too. Because it confirms that south side approach.

Amazing the government got multiple angles of a bridge falling apart in nowhere Minnesota and can't find a clear image of a 757 outside the Pentagon on the south approach path, isn't it?

The alleged "shadow" is ONLY visible in the register two view.

You can't see it at all at register 1, the sales floor, or the single pump (south) view at all.

Thank you for at least warning me, so I could hit the Stop button.

Maybe Integrated Consultants or Purdue could solve this video mystery. oh wait...

(Posted Image)

The "reflection" simply comes from the sun off the chrome rim of the car as it moves.

Bottom line EVEN IF this video hadn't already been proven to be manipulated it still is not definitive evidence of a plane on the south side.


This, however, most certainly is definitive evidence of a plane on the north side:

(Posted Image)
(Posted Image)
(Posted Image)


I can't fathom how you could throw this testimony in doubt SOLELY based on this dubious government released data.

Although you have refused to comment on this testimony to this day you are directly involved with it.

You were there when Barbara told us about Robert.

Obviously he was sure about the north side since day one since this is what he told his own manager on that day.

The cops end it.

Robert was clearly remembering accurately.

(Posted Image)


Wait until you hear the newest north side witness we have.

VERY strong and he describes the bank in detail.

When you going public with it so all this bullshit can come to an end?

I can't believe we're even using this faked ass video as evidence of anything....all this video proves is THEY'RE COVERING SOMETHING UP BY REMOVING 3 CAMERA ANGLES.

Sure as hell can't support their bullshit story if they had to remove the evidence that would confirm it.

This would be my guess as well. Because auto focusing lenses/cameras are going to close their aperture down when MORE light comes into the lens. So because a brighter light got into the camera's view, the lens closed up to allow less light in.

Think of it like your pupils, they are wide in the dark, and smaller in sunlight.

110 % Agree with you Terrorcell !


....Its ok to dig deeper and deeper in every tiny details ...like a "presumed" reflection whatsoever , that could have been cause by anything , in a buggy , lower than cheap resolution video from a gas station. Witch tape HAD BEEN confiscated and tampered by the perpretors and released many years after !

But we should never try to fix a complex scenario with a such a "vague" detail.

The REAL evidence is to be found in what is missing ! The video confiscated , and the camera removed ( also the one on the Sheraton Hotel ) are CLEAR evidence of the NEED to cover-up the visual evidence.

The testimony of witnesses are the only "left" visual evidence we can get.

( To take with great caution ! Human being are not "reliable" as video or photos ( unedited of course ! )


Does anyone had try to get the testimony of Sheraton personnel ? Should be very interesting !

Dylan,

What am I looking for exactly?

Whatever it is, it has "some people" up in arms and very defensive. I think they know.

I think I see a reflection, but I am not sure what angle the camera has.

I think I agree with you as well Finrod. Well said.

What kind of a stupid rule is that? Of course it is faked. They had over 5 years to bugger the video and then they released it right after witnesses started testifying that the Flight 77 flight path was really north of the Citgo. This corrupt Bush Regime manufactures evidence every time we turn around, from the non-existent Iraqi WMDs to the fake Osama videos and from the nonexistent 9-11 hijackers to these few altered or manufactured Pentagon security videos. To quote another famous piece of evidence:

The last I read there was a gag order. :unsure:

There is NOTHING definitive whatsoever in that video but Dylan's response has "some people" up in arms because Dylan with all of his influence has decided to break his silence about the north side claim in support of data supplied by the perps that has been proven to be manipulated.

He has done this just after he expressed support for Lloyd's legitimacy by asserting a proven incorrect speculative version of his story asserted by Russell about a year ago BEFORE we had Lloyd's first-hand account or any of the independently verified evidence at all in this regard.

This is a very significant and very public break from his previous stand-offish approach to this critical data.

He has refused to openly discuss the north side claim, Lloyd, or the C-130/2nd plane story until this break in silence.

Yet he has still failed to engage in open discussion/debate of the issue as of yet.

I am sorry to say that it makes me have serious reservations about the content of the Pentagon section of FC.