It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Doubletree Video Delay

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
As we all may know right now, the Doubletree video has been delayed until December 22,2006. I know, I know we dont know the reason why, but I know I speak for all of us when I say it has been too damn long. There is no trial going on right now, there is no reason this video could harm anyone, except maybe the government, but the reason for this delay is probably because after 5 years the FBI still hasnt doctored the video yet, I do know in fact that there has to be a plane in the video or else you will know it has been doctored, if you read the interview with the hotel employees, they describe that they watched on security cameras multiple times as the plane struck the pentagon, then the FBI took the film.




posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Maybe they're trying to milk us for an uproar over it, so they can rub it in our faces that much harder. They've been teasing us with videos of the Pentagon for years, "leaking" edited frames and everything else.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The faces of people who can be seen in the video need to be blurred out. The same happened with the Citgo video.



-----Original Message-----

From: Russell Pickering [mailto:russellpickering@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:57 AM
To: Chris Farrell
Subject: Doubletree Video

Chris,

Is this video being held back now?

Any idea why?

Any idea when it will be released?

Was the release court ordered?

Russell Pickering

__________________________________________________ ______

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Farrell
To: 'Russell Pickering'
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:53 AM
Subject: RE: Doubletree Video

I understand that the govt. needed more time for privacy-related technical reasons. I believe the release has now been pushed back to sometime in December. As soon as we get it, we’ll release it.
__________________________________________________ ______

-----Original Message-----

From: Russell Pickering [mailto:russellpickering@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:10 AM
To: Chris Farrell
Subject: Re: Doubletree Video

Chris,

Thank you for your response.

I apologize for my frustration.

5 years was not enough time?

Can you elaborate on what privacy issues when you have time please?

Thank you,
Russell

__________________________________________________ ______________

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Farrell
To: 'Russell Pickering'
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:15 AM
Subject: RE: Doubletree Video


I believe (although I do not possess metaphysical certitude on the point) that the govt. is busy blurring the faces of persons who wander into/through the video, in order to protect those persons’ privacy interests/rights. They did the same thing in the Citgo video.


Email between Judicial Watch and Russell Pickering.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
We have a guy at work that thinks he's a video god but in reality he sucks, But I really think he could blot out faces in 5 1/2 years. He seems to be a natural at it perhaps he shoukd send the FBI a resume.

mikell



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
We have a guy at work that thinks he's a video god but in reality he sucks, But I really think he could blot out faces in 5 1/2 years. He seems to be a natural at it perhaps he shoukd send the FBI a resume.

mikell


I'm not sure I understand your post. I don't think the name of the FBI employee who will be blotting the faces out has been released. How could you say that said FBI agent thinks he is a god if you don't know who he is?



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I think he was suggesting that 5.5 years to blot out faces is a bit ridiculous.

Btw, this isn't a one-liner.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Blur what faces?!? Wasn't this video from a camera mounted high atop the damn hotel?

[edit on 14-11-2006 by BrokenVisage]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I think he was suggesting that 5.5 years to blot out faces is a bit ridiculous.


I agree


But the video may have just been sitting in an evidence locker for 5 years as far as we know. It could be one or the other.

Will definetley be interesting to see when it comes out.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
5.5yrs to blur faces?
Whyd they declare no tape exists....
Why'd they release 2 tapes that show nothing, claiming it was proof.. when yet they had proof all along but chose not to release it.
why do they now need to declare when they are releasing the tape...
all the others just appeared...

the other tape shows no people hovering around the crash site.. so why are we now bluring out faces?

why cant they show a picture of the plane going in.. they dont need to release a WHOLE TAPE.

Why is this being told?

I asked my friend, the other day what he thinks happened..
he shrugged n said well.. terrorists took a plan and jammed it in..

I said how do you know that.. you havent seen anything that prooves a plane entered the pentagon..

he said yes I have.. ive seen photos of a plane hitting the pentagon.. a plane hit the pentagon... what else could if of possibly been..

Now I continued to say.. no you havet seen a PLANE hitting the pentagon.. you've seen a damaged pentagon.. in ruins... and they've TOLD you a plane hit..
he firmly disagreed and said
" NO.. A plane hit,ive seen the photo.. I dont know where, or when.. or on what channel but I have seen a photo.."

Now, we all know there is no actual footage of a recognisable plane hitting the pentagon.



but look... after 5yrs its blurred so mcuh in your mind.. your deadfast certain you have actually seen a plane inside the pentagon..

this is a nother example.

if we flash '' footage of plane hitting pentagon '' enugh times.. wihtout actually showing anything... enough people out there will see the headline.. and just accept it... not needing proof..

that is the power of media, and the poewr of the public..
before, it was unheard of for a government to lie on such a scale.
so people would never believe they are starting now.

sad really....

[edit on 15-11-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Agit8dChop,

There is more than enough photographs of plane wreckage at the Pentagon to show that a plane hit the building. All you have to do is search "Pentagon Plane Wreckage" in google.

The email in my original post said - it's not a FACT that the FBI is holding the tapes for the reason of blurring faces. But the guys at judicial watch suspect that is the case. The FBI only said "Privacy Reasons".

Hope that helped.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Sorry mate, im still yet to see plane wreckage in the pentagon.

there's wreckage of something... but im my personal opinion.. its not a boeing airliner.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Sorry mate, im still yet to see plane wreckage in the pentagon.

there's wreckage of something... but im my personal opinion.. its not a boeing airliner.


That's cool mate


I respect your opinion and I don't wish to force mine on you.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I ask again.. blur WHAT faces?

If this video is coming from the camera I think it is, then it should have an aerial overview of the "planes" trajectory as it barrels into the Pentagon, right? So why are we talking about blurring faces here?

This isn't just another gas station video from ground level, it's a surveillance video shot from above, one that SHOULD show conclusive evidence of the object in full frames before impact.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I remember seeing pics of the vacant camera mount where the video camera in question was mounted - it was high atop a ledge about halfway up the hotel's facade. From the camera's vantage point you wouldn't be able to make out any detail on a face, they would be too far away.

This is more pure BS being perpetrated by the government!
First there were NO videos, now there is video BUT they have to be doctored


I'm willing to bet that they are CREATING a video using Computer generated models. I can't wait to see it! I sell engineering, modeling and CG software for a living! I'll be able to analyse it and call it out as a fraud INSTANTLY!



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
I remember seeing pics of the vacant camera mount where the video camera in question was mounted - it was high atop a ledge about halfway up the hotel's facade.


If you are referring to my post about the confiscated security cameras/tapes that picture was of the Sheraton, not the Double Tree.

I have inside information from security personnel at the Double Tree that the video does in fact show a plane.

The positioning of the building is such that it would be impossible to show an impact.

Here is a shot that I took from the top floor of the Double Tree with the best view possible of the pentagon.

I drew a line where you can expect to see the plane.

The wedge that got hit is on the other side.

My guess is that it will be nothing but an indistinguishable blur that ends in an explosion.



Here I circled the window at the top from where I took the shot:



Notice in the shot of the pentagon that you can see the very edge a building in the left edge of the photo.

This is 400 Army Navy drive which is a government building.

You can even see a security camera at the very top of the building in the pic. I believe this building would have a better view.

I wonder what happend to their tape?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Jack,

I am new to this site and have enjoyed the passion you have for this topic. I try so hard to find the truth in all this and it is so clouded Im afraid we will never get it all.

I do have a question for you. With all due respect, you stated that you have had contact with security associates at the Double Tree.... and that they said they saw a plane flying toward the pentagon......you then stated: "My guess is that it will be nothing but an indistinguishable blur that ends in an explosion." This was in refrence to the video tape that was confiscated, and to be released in Dec.

Why would you have to "Guess" what it shows when you have someone at the hotel you have been in contact with tell you that they saw a plane? Or, are you implying that the government will doctor the footage so we can't see the aircraft?

[edit on 15-11-2006 by CameronFox]

[edit on 15-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
People say that this security camera video shows a plane.



Do you see a plane?



The person that I had contact with did not see the video himself.

He only heard from his superiors that the video shows a plane.

I simply believe that since the camera is so far away that it will not catch something very distinguishable.

I could be wrong.

But yes......it would be foolish and naive to take evidence at face value that was provided by the perpetrators years later.

I most certainly do believe they would doctor it so we can't really see the aircraft.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Ditto, thumbs up to Jack.
If only I lived in America, Id love to be out scouting and investigating.

I still think my point stands.

If they had this tape, showing a plane flying toward the pentagon..
why not release it before the 2x dubious tapes?

If this tape shows something plausable.. they would of released it first.. and put to rest everything from the begining.

And im still yet to see a reason why these tapes were deemed to be kept locked up, being they had information pertaining to the trial of zacarus.

We are being TOLD more than these tapes SHOW.. yet its the TAPES that neeed to be kept secret?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
I most certainly do believe they would doctor it so we can't really see the aircraft.


Wait a sec... so you think they want to doctor the vids so that we DON'T see a plane? What would be the government's motive to perpetuating conspiracy theories?

The most obvious explanation to me is that they want people to believe the official story, but they gotta photoshop it real good first.

Agit8dChop makes a good point about people thinking they saw a plane hit when they really didn't. Media manipulation at it's best!



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Guys I just want to re-itterate the point that the "blurring faces" reason for delaying the tape is only speculation at this point.

All we know for solid fact is that the tape was delayed for "privacy reasons".




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join