911 Pentagon

I don't know why he used the southside flightpath on the same image as his erroneous location for Ryefield.
But CIT were always doing this.
Trying to discredit witnesses by accusing them of lying about they saw, which did not gel with the mistaken locations they used for some witnesses.
Maybe JWD is trying to discredit her as well.

Screenshot_20240219-134238_Chrome~2.jpg
 
Damn. It's crazy to think someone all the way in Tasmania has a better understanding of the flight path/witness testimony than a D.C. native.

I don't think JWD is trying to discredit her. I try to assume good faith. Tho, you're right to be upset about his take on Lloyde. I don't know why he keeps holding onto these views, because you've proven the case that CIT overlooked many NoC witnesses. But I saw he's still a bit confused about CeeCee Lyles phone calls...the answering machine message was made from an airphone, and her second call was from cell phone. He sticks with claiming that the answering machine message was from cell phone, even after I explained it to him. -shrugs- Lorne Lyles didn't discover the message until shortly after her funeral.

I found the footage he uses to claim that the plane did a right-to-left bank. His witness is TIM TIMMERMAN. JWD's comment follows below (replying to someone else):
how come? it certainly wasn't my attention [sic]. the truth sucks and yes it can be depressing as hell. but wouldn't you rather know the truth? the fact that you're already looking at the event in closer detail indicates that you do in fact want to get closer to the truth, even if you've been influenced to confirm a particular truth. that is the first step! that's where i started with this back in 2006, looking to prove the conspiracy theorists wrong. i did all the picture staring early on. but i eventually realized the only way to find the truth was to find as many witness accounts as there was/is to find, and see what details they corroborated. what specifically do the majority of them recall seeing the plane do, and what was their location when they saw it. since i'm local to the area, it was easier to understand and envision what they said they were seeing, once i knew where they were when they saw it. but even without the advantage of local familiarity, their accounts reveal that the plane arrived north of the official path and was banking - this detail is in the majority of accounts in one form or another, especially those who were close instead of far away. not all use the word "bank", some say it rocked to one side, others say it was at an angle. some of those who were close also saw the plane do an ensuing left bank. to one witness



(in apartment building across the way) the right to left bank appeared as a "cartwheel".


but whatever it did, the plane was never low and level, feet above the ground, and it wasn't flying anywhere near 500+ mph. start digging into the witness accounts. use google's overhead satellite and streetviews as i did with the lady witness in my previous post, plot their locations, then read their recollections. see what they describe and compare it to what the 5 frames purport to show. the contradictions will become clear pretty quickly.

or if it depresses you, then leave it be. but in my experience people who are curious can't just turn it off. i certainly couldn't. i dug and dug until i got as close to the truth as possible. honestly, the question of impact vs no impact isn't worth the time because it can't be proven. there are only 2.5 witnesses on record who saw the plane AFTER the explosions. one is dead, one refused to clarify beyond confirming that the plane he saw was a commercial airliner with two jet engines, and one was already being deceptive about what saw when he revealed it (hence only counting him as half a witness). the provable truth about AA77 - one worth the effort - is that it never flew back east for 30 minutes. if you dig through my post history, somewhere in the past two or three weeks i go into detail about some of it.

Here's the witness interview:

 
Last edited:
I don't think JWD is trying to discredit her. I try to assume good faith.

If I'm understanding correctly: Ruby is trying to say that Ryefield is actually a north flight path witness, and that JWD has gotten their location wrong?

Here's the witness interview:

Listened to the interview. I didn't hear Timmerman say anything about a right-to-left bank, did you? He did say the plane crashed into the ground well before hitting the building, which strongly contradicts all other evidence?
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to an article by Craig Ranke from 2010, where he gives some background to the testimony of the enigma who was "Tim" Timmerman, allegedly a pilot, and possibly the very first witness to be interviewed on radio that morning. Nobody could ever locate the elusive Timmerman again, and that interview was his final word on the event.

Timmerman was the roommate of Dawn Vignola, who also called a radio station to report on what she saw. Her recorded account has Timmerman's voice in the background, suggesting what she should say.

Vignola was later contacted by CIT in 2007. She declined to be interviewed, but did allow them to take a photo from her vantage point, showing that her view of the Pentagon was far distant, with highrise buildings obscuring most of the plane's approach. She would have seen the plane appear for a mere fraction of a second between apartment blocks and Pentagon wall.

So the accounts of Timmerman and Vignola were astonishingly detailed for something that would have occurred in a flash!

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/art...-account-vs-erik-larson-s-methods-by-t71.html
 
Here's an aerial photo showing the very narrow field of view of the western wall of the Pentagon which could be seen by Timmerman and Vignola.

Timmerman had claimed that he was only a quarter of a mile from the explosion. But each side of the Pentagon is almost 1/4 mile. In fact he was about 4/5 of a mile away.

Screenshot_20240220-111855_Photos~2.jpg

This photo was taken by Craig Ranke in 2007 when Dawn Vignola invited him to see the view of the Pentagon from her window. The plane would have crossed this narrow wedge in a fraction of a second.

For scale, the tail of the plane was just over half the height of the wall.

Screenshot_20240220-095604_Chrome~3.jpg
 
Winston Smith
Interrupting the flow here for a minute, with something I just found on a CIT Forum, in OneSliceShort's Pentagon Witness List thread from 2012.

You were asking me about the Citgo CCTV footage and whether it showed Robert Turcios in the location he claimed to be when he heard the plane.

Turcios stated to CIT on their video that he was near the eastern pump on the southern side of the station, servicing the amenities from his cart. But the low quality video does not seem to show him there.

Russell Pickering was a formerly prominent 9/11 researcher, who had been asked to assist with witness interviews for the video Loose Change. Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke were then also included, the first time they worked together before firming CIT.

Pickering obviously wondered at the Citgo CCTV footage too. He gave Turcios this questionnaire to fill out, to clarify the situation.

Turcios' s answers dispelled several criticisms levelled against him. Some OCT diehards protest that Turcios was a Southside witness. They say the "DO NOT ENTER" sign over which he saw the plane "lift up a little bit," was the sign on top of the overpass bridge.

But Turcios wrote that the plane went to the left of that bridge, and he circled the next overhead sign to the north, as the last place that he saw the plane.

Whether or not Turcios ever worked it out, if the plane lifted up to clear that sign, then it could not possibly have swooped down again to hit the ground floor of the Pentagon, in the fraction of a second it would have taken to clear the lawn. Nor could it have made the directional damage path inside the Pentagon.

Screenshot_20240221-012504_Photos~3.jpg
 
So you're saying that maybe people shouldn't waste so much time calling Lloyde England a liar, when this guy was the first to appear in MSM reports? And, JWD also loses some credibility for taking this seriously?
Of course I think that nobody should waste time calling Lloyde a liar, for any reason at all.

But yes, Timmerman was a flash in the pan who kicked off the radio call-in witness testimonies. He set the tone for interpreting the momentary flash that he witnessed. He claimed to be a pilot (whom nobody could verify) and therefore an authority who was entitled to positively identify the plane as an AA 757. Fair enough. Though he only saw it as it passed the Sheraton, then lost sight of it behind neighbouring highrises. Curious that his view was fixed on that narrow wedge over the Pentagon lawn, in time to see a surprising amount of detail that he described so fully, which occupied a fraction of a second. Curious also that his roommate Dawn Vignola was able to track the plane exactly as accurately as he did.

I'm not sure how seriously this should be taken. I'm happy to believe that both Timmerman and Vignola watched the spectacle from their apartment. But were they both previously alerted to be watching for a 757 flying low past the Sheraton, that would reappear in front of the Pentagon? Did they have a script to follow when speaking to the radio stations? Did Dawn forget her lines and need prompting from Timmerman?

Did they tell the whole truth? I don't think so. I suspect they had something to hide. Timmerman was so keen to hide something that he vanished completely. Dawn Vignola was evasive and reticent about speaking of her experience to CIT. Her husband was downright snarky.

Looking at all the apartment windows facing the Pentagon, it surprises me that we don't have scores of similar testimonies. Many apartments were much closer than Vignola's, with no obstructions.

It's a shame that JWD is so scared of me!! Or so Blue_Windows says. He is very open with his opinions on Reddit. Even though his comments are forever being deleted from that forum, annoyingly. If he would come here and discuss it, we would be very pleasant and respectful of his input.
 
If I'm understanding correctly: Ruby is trying to say that Ryefield is actually a north flight path witness, and that JWD has gotten their location wrong?
Correct. In her video testimony, Ryefield mentions how she was driving to work and came through the I-395 underpass onto Route 27. She says the traffic was almost at a standstill. Numerous people think she saw the plane from there.

But she goes on to explain that she was there when she heard GWB come on the radio talking about a terrorist attack, and that she was able to slowly make her way close to the Pentagon over the next few minutes.

Her video testimony from October 2002 is here.

https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/96625

The man who was at the helipad, who ran into the back of a van when he saw the plane, and then was berated by the lady driver, is Stephen McHale. His interesting but little known testimony is also there.
(So is April Gallop.)

https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/96446

In another video, Ryefield stated that she was nearly at the helipad when she saw the plane. Here, she stated that she left her van's engine running, radio on, driver's door open, and ran down the road for a better look.

Screenshot_20240222-145116_Photos~2.jpg

I don't think JWD has studied all these sources as thoroughly as he should have.

She stated that the plane was maybe 50 yards in front of her, and that the sun was shining so brightly off the silver plane that she had to squint.

She demonstrated how the plane flew in somewhat diagonal to the wall, but shows the opposite angle from the official flightpath.

Screenshot_20240222-161326_Chrome~2.jpg

She also said the plane "clipped the lightpoles" in front of her. Not that any poles were knocked down. But this detail matches the testimonies of Vin Narayanan, Sean Boger, and others, who all believed the plane clipped the overhead sign opposite the Heliport tower.

So she had to be near the helipad, and a North of Citgo eyewitness.

I don't understand JWD's post showing the wrong location for Ryefield, and the Southside flightpath.
 
Last edited:
But this detail matches the testimonies of Vin Narayanan, Sean Boger, and others, who all believed the plane clipped the overhead sign opposite the Heliport tower.

This is news to me! The Heliport tower is well to the north of the alleged 'light pole' (south) path? Where exactly is this overhead sign? Are there photographs of it in its clipped state? Is this, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the 'light pole' path is bogus?
 
The Heliport tower is well to the north of the alleged 'light pole' (south) path? Where exactly is this overhead sign?
There are several overhead signs on Route 27 next to the Pentagon.

Screenshot_20240224-101252_Chrome~4.jpg
  1. On top of the Columbia Pike overpass bridge
  2. Across the southbound lanes only, opposite the southwestern corner
  3. Opposite the Heliport tower.
#1 can be ruled out, as nobody saw the plane fly across the bridge, although several lightpoles were downed there.

Sean Boger had a good view of #3, almost directly in front of him as he watched the plane fly towards him from between the Citgo and cemetery.
#2 was much farther away, about 825 feet to his southwest.

#2 is the one with the "Do Not Enter" sign, over which Robert Turcios said he saw the plane "lift up a little bit" as it crossed the highway.

Screenshot_20240224-104744_Photos~2.jpg

#3 is around the corner of the Columbia Pike Exit Road, lower than the trees on top of the cemetery bank.
Darius Prather said he saw the plane "pivot up" at this junction as it crossed the highway.

Screenshot_20240224-104351_Photos~2.jpg

Vin Narayanan stated that he was stuck in traffic, just before an overhead sign. He said he saw the plane "clip" the overhead sign. But he was adamant that no lightpoles were knocked down.

CIT assumed he meant he was on the southern side of the overpass bridge.
But his colleague Joel Sucherman was in that location, and he did not see the plane fly across the bridge, nor witness any poles being knocked down, nor a sign being clipped.

In a joint interview, Narayanan stated that he was "on the other side of the Pentagon" from Sucherman.
If he had been at sign #2, Narayanan would have been on the same side of the Pentagon, the South side.
Also, that overhead sign does not extend across the northbound lanes, so he would not have been in front of it.

Therefore he must have been at the northern end of the Pentagon, just before #3, opposite Sean Boger.

Cheryl Ryefield stated that she was "nearly at the helipad". Various other details confirm that location. She said the plane was maybe 50 yards ahead of her, tallying with other witnesses in that area.
So the overhead sign to which she refers must be #3.

Steve Riskus stated that this composite image represented how he saw the plane on 9/11.
Obviously the plane was flying very close to sign #3. The next sign is far south, and the overpass sign is almost out of view.

Screenshot_20240224-110446_Photos~3.jpg

The plane had to be high enough to clear those trees.
Even if it was not, there is no way that the tail of a plane can hit an object, when its wingspan is so much wider.

So I dismiss the idea of the plane hitting any poles or signs. These are probably rationalisations made in the media-saturated wake of the event, when the story of the plane hitting lightpoles was impressed upon their recollections.

I have no doubt that they all saw something, corresponding probably to the "flash" reported by others.
But I suggest that what they saw was a projectile pole hitting that sign #3 as it was fired from the CH-53 towards Lloyde England's cab. This pole missed, but the next one impaled his windshield.
Both Lloyde and Detective Fortunato stated that there was another pole on the road.

None of the many images of this sign shows any damage, to my knowledge.
 
I forgot to mention. Another witness who claimed to have seen the plane hitting a pole, was PPO Wanda Ramey. She was on duty in the Guard Shack in North Parking.

Of course OCT believers think this means she witnessed the plane knocking down the poles on the bridge. But that's not what she said.

Initially, Ramey stated that she saw the plane hit a single lightpole.

ERIC BART COMPILATION
Wanda Ramey:
Wanda Ramey, a DPS master patrol officer, had had a bird's eye view. Ramey stood at the Mall plaza booth when she saw a low-flying airplane. "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building," she said. "It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone." Recalling those moments again, Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside. "A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke," she said.


But she was 1,600 feet north of downed pole #1, which she could scarcely have seen.
Overhead sign #3 was less than 500 feet away from her.
She clearly had a good view of overhead sign #3.

And she was very close to Lloyde's cab when it was struck by a pole!!

Screenshot_20240224-101252_Chrome~5.jpg

There was a list of witnesses who allegedly saw the plane hitting lightpoles. CIT did an excellent breakdown of all these witnesses. First they deleted all who were not even there, and those accounts which were unreferenced or second-hand reports.

Then they attempted to interview everyone else. Unanimously, these witnesses denied having actually seen the plane hit any poles, but admitted they had deduced this on being influenced by media after the event.

CIT initially could not find Wanda Ramey, who was the last alleged witness. JWD eventually tracked her down, and CIT did a phone interview with her, which is still available online.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/cit-interviews-witness-wanda-ramey-t324.html

She had left the Pentagon Police due to stress, and had counseling therapy and medication to help her forget her troubling experience.

Screenshot_20240225-102916_Chrome~2.jpg

So when CIT spoke with her, she could not recall all the details.
However she did see the plane coming from the Navy Annex, although she could not remember which side of the Citgo it was on.

She also stated that the plane ...

"dipped down then BOUNCED UP into the building".

Combine this with her initial statement :

Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside.
"A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke."


So she saw the plane LIFT UP, then be curiously "sucked up inside the building."
Then it was several seconds before she heard the explosion and saw the fireball!!
Like so many other witnesses, she placed a distinct gap between the surreal disappearance of the plane, much higher than the lawn-skimming requirement of the ground floor hole in the Pentagon, and the explosion.

This fits with my analysis of the ghostly flyover plane in the sky on the Gatecam footage, about 3 seconds prior to the fireball. Ramey's view was almost identical to that, being some yards north of the Gatecams.

Sounds like a reluctant fly over witness to me!!
 
I just wonder why Boger and Van Niryanan couldn't see the helicopter if they heard the sound/flash of the pole clashing against the overhead sign. There had to be a clear line of sight from the helicopter to Lloyde's cab, right? It couldn't be much higher in altitude than the "attack" plane. Perhaps that testimony was suppressed? Hmm....
 
I forgot to mention. Another witness who claimed to have seen the plane hitting a pole, was PPO Wanda Ramey. She was on duty in the Guard Shack in North Parking.

Of course OCT believers think this means she witnessed the plane knocking down the poles on the bridge. But that's not what she said.

Initially, Ramey stated that she saw the plane hit a single lightpole.

ERIC BART COMPILATION
Wanda Ramey:
Wanda Ramey, a DPS master patrol officer, had had a bird's eye view. Ramey stood at the Mall plaza booth when she saw a low-flying airplane. "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building," she said. "It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone." Recalling those moments again, Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside. "A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke," she said.


But she was 1,600 feet north of downed pole #1, which she could scarcely have seen.
Overhead sign #3 was less than 500 feet away from her.
She clearly had a good view of overhead sign #3.

And she was very close to Lloyde's cab when it was struck by a pole!!

View attachment 1293

There was a list of witnesses who allegedly saw the plane hitting lightpoles. CIT did an excellent breakdown of all these witnesses. First they deleted all who were not even there, and those accounts which were unreferenced or second-hand reports.

Then they attempted to interview everyone else. Unanimously, these witnesses denied having actually seen the plane hit any poles, but admitted they had deduced this on being influenced by media after the event.

CIT initially could not find Wanda Ramey, who was the last alleged witness. JWD eventually tracked her down, and CIT did a phone interview with her, which is still available online.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/cit-interviews-witness-wanda-ramey-t324.html

She had left the Pentagon Police due to stress, and had counseling therapy and medication to help her forget her troubling experience.

View attachment 1294

So when CIT spoke with her, she could not recall all the details.
However she did see the plane coming from the Navy Annex, although she could not remember which side of the Citgo it was on.

She also stated that the plane ...

"dipped down then BOUNCED UP into the building".

Combine this with her initial statement :

Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside.
"A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke."


So she saw the plane LIFT UP, then be curiously "sucked up inside the building."
Then it was several seconds before she heard the explosion and saw the fireball!!
Like so many other witnesses, she placed a distinct gap between the surreal disappearance of the plane, much higher than the lawn-skimming requirement of the ground floor hole in the Pentagon, and the explosion.

This fits with my analysis of the ghostly flyover plane in the sky on the Gatecam footage, about 3 seconds prior to the fireball. Ramey's view was almost identical to that, being some yards north of the Gatecams.

Sounds like a reluctant fly over witness to me!!


It's probably a bit speculative, but how long do you imagine the delay between the "disappearance" of the plane and the actual explosion, was? I'm trying to imagine what they could've seen, and the witnesses must've left with questions. Like, wouldn't there be half a second (?), perhaps a bit more, where there was no apparent impact, no obvious entry hole being formed, sudden stopping of the engines, etc. followed by the explosion?

Ramey gives a time of "a few seconds". But I'm trying to replay the scene she paints, in my mind. It seems like the Pentagon suddenly exploded? Maybe the witnesses attributed the damage to the plane because the other possibility (fly-over) was too "crazy" sounding? Gah. I'm just puzzling over these details here...

I noticed the "sucked up into the building" detail too. Another witness says the plane "melted into the building like it was a birthday cake". I'm just trying to re-create that image in my mind...how could the plane be "swallowed" or "melt" into the building, rather than impact it? Y'know what I mean? Did the plane pull up at the very last second?

I feel like if I was there at the Pentagon, I would've seen the fly-over. There must've been some serious visual trickery going on, 'cause it's bamboozling me, lol.

Mind you I think the fly-over theory is the most plausible Pentagon theory and it clearly has the most evidence behind it – witness testimony, physical evidence (roof parapet damage). But I also accept that I just can't visualize the fly-over action itself very well.
 
Last edited:
but how long do you imagine the delay between the "disappearance" of the plane and the actual explosion, was?
If the Gatecam video is indeed a whistleblower clue to a flyover plane, and if it was exposed at precisely 1 frame per second, and if it was in real time, then the seconds elapsed are there on the images.
  • 0:17 Clear sky
  • 0:18 The plane starts to appear at right of frame
  • 0:19 Plane is fully visible
  • 0:20 Plane is gone
  • 0:21 Clear sky
  • 0:22 A horizontal band that seems to be a disturbed, heated air trail
    • The "tail" of "AA77" appears above the other gatecam
  • 0:23 Explosion and fireball beyond heliport tower.
Of course there are several problems.if the frame rate =1fps, then the plane would have been travelling very slowly given the short distance traveled between 0:18 & 0:19.

These images were found after I looped about 20 seconds of this footage, zoomed in on the sky, and noticed that there was something moving from right to left. I then enhanced the image by adjusting contrast, brightness, gamma, saturation etc.

Doing the same on the other video did not yield the same results.

Working on the premise that the original footage must have been tampered with to insert "AA77", and to delete the evidence of the flyover plane, the sky must have been altered, probably by replacing it on a couple of frames with earlier frames taken before the plane appeared.

The two cameras were offset by a fraction of a second. I think Wayne Coste calculated 0.4 seconds.

Putting my whistleblower hat on, if I were tasked with doing this job and wished to leave clues for posterity to inquisitive investigators, I would leave just such a watermark-like image of the flyover plane in the sky. I would possibly use the washed out plane images from both cameras, separated by that fraction of a second, and combine them on just one of the videos, so that looping the footage would give the telltale effect of the plane moving across two frames.

This could explain the seeming impossibility of the ghostly plane flying so slowly and covering so little distance between the two frames.

I would also have to delete the shadow cast on the lawn by the flyover plane from both videos. Again, earlier frames could have been substituted. This might explain the lack of engine wake on 0:20 & 0:21.

Interestingly, the OCT "AA77" which must have been inserted, casts no shadow on the lawn, though other smaller objects do.

If you have ever gazed into a pot of water just before it comes to a simmer, the perfectly clear liquid appears to seethe as the density changes with the temperature. Like a mirage where hot air at the ground surface refracts the light. Or when we watch a plane on the runway, running its engines, we see a disturbance of the superheated air from the exhaust. As on the frame where a horizontal trail is seen across the sky in the wake of the plane.

We can also see, in those enhanced images, how the air around the roofline of the Pentagon, warming up in the morning sun, refracts the light, giving an effect almost like steam swirling off the surface.

One of the valid arguments against the plane flying over the roof directly above and simultaneous with the explosion, is that the wing vortices and engine wake would significantly disturb the fireball.
Having the flyover plane cross the wall much further north and 3 seconds earlier, would minimise this effect.

Screenshot_20240226-043203_Photos~2.jpg
 
Putting my whistleblower hat on, if I were tasked with doing this job and wished to leave clues for posterity to inquisitive investigators, I would leave just such a watermark-like image of the flyover plane in the sky

But if you were simply a sloppy and somewhat rushed technician, and/or working with primitive video editing tools: we'd get the same result, right? You're not saying that the video appears to have been deliberately doctored by a whistleblower?
 
Last edited:
But if you were simply a sloppy and somewhat rushed technician, and/or working with primitive video editing tools: we'd get the same result, right? You're not saying that the video appears to have been deliberately doctored by a whistleblower?
No, I think I am saying that!!

Several things needed to have been very deliberately tampered with.

All witness evidence points to a north of Citgo plane which logically could only have overflown the Pentagon.

Therefore a nebulous shape had to be inserted into the original frames to suit the OCT.

If there was a flyover plane, then this obvious clue to major shenanigans would have to be deleted, or disguised in some way.

Neither video shows the large shadow of a flyover plane on the lawn (which would have been close to the cameras, taking into account solar altitude and azimuth at that hour).

This would necessitate deleting those frames from both, and substituting an earlier frame in both cases. This would be the frame/s after the plane had crossed the wall and was above the roof.

It would be educational to have some whizz recreate the scene with 3D software, which could show us the shadows that we would expect to have seen. Rob Balsamo could have done it, I'm sure.

One video does not show these watermark images.
The other video shows 2 ghostly planes, but too close together to have been at 1 second intervals.

Had each ghost image been left in its own video, looping either of those segments would not have given the suspicion of a plane possibly crossing the airspace above the lawn. One amorphous blur on each video would not catch the eye. But two consecutive amorphous blurs with identical features on a single video, alerts the senses.

So I've always suspected that the real-time image from one camera was overlaid on the other video, to amplify this impression of eastward motion of the flyover plane, with the distance between these ghost images suggesting less than 1 second elapsed between them.

Have you ever tried looping those videos yourself? In Firefox, I downloaded the videos, then used its tools to zoom in on the sky, slow the speed, and play around with contrast, gamma, etc. Interesting exercise!!

Whoever edited these videos, was no amateur. It seems very calculated to me.
 
Back
Top