It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New analysis of the 9/11 Pentagon videos

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I just wanted to say sorry for putting you on my frustrating fraudster's list. You don't belong there,

Yes, there is a lot of people that do not belong there.

I guess i will have to make a list for the believers that still believe the officil story with no evidence to support it.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by nick7261I'm just not sure what the video sources were. If they were taken from the internet, then maybe video compression had something to do with why frames appear missing. It would seem to me that in order to know for sure if frames were intentionally removed, one would need the original tapes.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

As indicated in the paper I wrote, the videos I have analyzed are those supplied by the DoD in response to a FOI act.

Video compression should not lead to a missing frame. And bear in mind that when I refer to a missing frame it is actually 32 frames that are missing from the recompressed movie as supplied by the DoD. And these 32 missing frames correspond to one missing frame from the original.

I doubt the original are anolog tapes. They have most most likely been recorded digitally onto HDD or DVD with a CCTV codec IMO but I cannot be 100% sure about that.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by nick7261Is there a way to clear up my understanding, and summarize more clearly why the photos you've shown prove that frames are missing?

It's been answered more or less by other poster but let me explain what i did.

I extracted all frames from the mpeg videos using the free video utility VirtualDub.

Then I deleted all duplicate frames keeping just one frame per recorded event.

Then I created an html table with two colums, one for each video, in which I stacked all the frames, trying to match identical event on the same rows.

I started matching with the initial fireball as it was the easiest to start with.

It turned out that images could be easily matched because frames from each videos were apparently shot at nearly exactly the same time, which makes that frames from the same row are very similar to each other and frames from a different row are dissimilar.

Then I went downwards and added frames as they came in the videos in both rows until I ran out of frames in one video. It appeared that, from the moment of the initial firebal to the end of the video that ends the first, the two cams remain perfectly in sync.

It's when I went upward that a problem arose. I also added frames as they came in the videos but when I reached the police car event I noticed that the frames in the same rows weren't matching anymore.

For them to match again I had to insert an empty cell in one column, leading me to conclude that a frame was missing from video 2.

Right, that's quite clear an answer I guess. I hope it answers the question and also refutes properly all those who said in the thread that in their opinion no frame is missing.

Now, when matching frames upward from the initial fireball, by adding them as they come in the videos, immediately yelds two dissimilar frames on the same row. Those are the two frames showing a flying object. One from camera 1 shows it incoming on the extreme right and the other from camera 2 shows it in the middle of the lawn behind a pillar with a trail of water vapour behind it. Then all frames are similar as nothing happens at all until the police car event reveals that a frame must be missing in video 2 as pointed out just above.

And here appears a riddle as we found out that a frame is missing and we have two dissimilar frames on a same row.

As we have seen that, from the initial fireball up to the end of the video that ends first, cameras are in pefect sync all the time, we can expect that they should also be in sync for the frames that immediately precede the fireball. But they don't seem to be.

This led me to consider the possiblity that not only one frame was missing but three. That each of the very dissimilar frames showing the flying object had in fact a counterpart in the other video that are missing.

If so, one of those missing frames should show the flying object in full view. That would be the frame corresponding to the one from camera 2 where the flying object is behind the pillar with its trail of smoke behind it.

I hope this explain well all my reasoning as far as missing frames go.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Zebra777]

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Zebra777]

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 10:27 AM
Thank you for the time and effort you've put into this question. It's my opinion that both videos have been altered, even to the point of inserting a larger fireball.

Also, if the angle of the impact as described by the OCT we're true, I would expect more wreckage coming toward the cameras after impact.

Thanks again for this analysis.

<< 1   >>

log in