Another look at the Doubletree video(s)!

I thought I would clear up some misconceptions regarding the Doubletree footage which may help clear up some of the "irregularities" being discussed here.

First, the YouTube footage is an extraction from only one of the video channels. There are 11 total. When the footage was released, Judicial Watch received 10 DVD's from the FBI representing 10 of the channels. One channel was claimed by the FBI to have not been recording. Judicial Watch was kind enough to send me the DVD's for analysis. Upon reconstruction of the multiplexer sequence, I was able to recover frames from the missing channel which turned out to be the rooftop restaurant (and it was recording). That of course is the subject of additional FOIA activity.

A lot of the jerking, freezing, and cross-over are due to the way the channels were stored on the original medium, or errors in extracting each channel to video. The little white dot on the roadway that some are claiming is a plane, is consistent with a car and is easily traceable in the original video. The only evidence of an airborne object is around 10 minutes prior to the event when a helicopter flies over the I-395 area at low altitude.

Doubletree Helicopter

As a footnote, there is also an exterior camera on the loading dock of the Doubletree which permits viewing a small segment of the sky common to the north camera. Again, only one case of an airborne object is observed.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
I thought I would clear up some misconceptions regarding the Doubletree footage which may help clear up some of the "irregularities" being discussed here.

A lot of the jerking, freezing, and cross-over are due to the way the channels were stored on the original medium, or errors in extracting each channel to video. The little white dot on the roadway that some are claiming is a plane, is consistent with a car and is easily traceable in the original video. The only evidence of an airborne object is around 10 minutes prior to the event when a helicopter flies over the I-395 area at low altitude.

I don't see much 'clearing up' at all, sorry!

"The little white dot" as you call it, is a moving object and therefore cannot possibly
be described as a "dot", even with the most vivid imagination some might be able to
come up with.
Why you chose to describe the moving object in this fashion is a mystery to me, unless
of course you did this quite willfully and deliberately for reasons unfathomable and
perplexing!
You'll see this white object in question just prior to the subsequent explosion.

And it certainly has nothing to do with being consistent with a car, as anybody easily
can verify for themselves by following the direction of the object as it leaves 09:34:06,
away from the screen in the direction of the pentagon.

Furthermore, this white object is completely missing from the CNN video's first section
out of the tree composite clips showing the explosion , which proves conclusively that it
cannot possibly be the car you want it to be; for where is the logic in going to all that
trouble erasing a mere simple innocent little car in one clip and forget to do the same in
another!!

All this is verifiable if someone would like to compare the two video clips, showing the exact same moments further back in this thread.

Lastly, can't for the life of me see what the flying object (shown in your video ca. 10
minutes before the explosion) has to do with the subject we are discussing!

Care to elaborate?




[edit on 5-12-2008 by djeminy]

reply to post by djeminy


The topic is "Another look at the Doubletree videos". Some have suggested finding an airborne object. I am giving you a validated example of an airborne object in the Doubletree video so you know what an airborne object looks like. And I would suggest understanding the video and the security system used to record it is important. Just because someone posts a video on YouTube does not mean it came from the FBI. Perhaps looking at the DVD which did come from the FBI might also prove useful.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by djeminy

 

The topic is "Another look at the Doubletree videos". Some have suggested finding an airborne object. I am giving you a validated example of an airborne object in the Doubletree video so you know what an airborne object looks like. And I would suggest understanding the video and the security system used to record it is important. Just because someone posts a video on YouTube does not mean it came from the FBI. Perhaps looking at the DVD which did come from the FBI might also prove useful.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by 911files]

If I could please draw your attention to the OP and the subsequent posts, you'll find
that we are discussing the white object observable at 09:34:06 in the cogburn video, as
well as the missing seconds in the following sequences of events - proving at least
some kind of manipulation.

This same white object mentioned above, is missing in the first part of the CNN video.

It is my contention that this white object is the white plane observed by the 13
witnesses interviewed by CIT, and if this be the case therefore could prove the fly-over.

You'll find that this is basically the subjects of the thread.

It would be appreciated if you could respect this, please!

reply to post by djeminy


I don't know how much more respectful of the topic I can be than suggesting that the problem with the CNN video might well be CNN, not the government. Scott Bingham's version of the video is derived without edit from the DVD's he received from the FBI. The one I use is from the FBI. So those are two reliable versions which can be attributed to the government.

If you are going to understand the anomaly you are discussing, then validating the source and understanding the medium it is derived from is essential.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by djeminy

 

I don't know how much more respectful of the topic I can be than suggesting that the problem with the CNN video might well be CNN, not the government. Scott Bingham's version of the video is derived without edit from the DVD's he received from the FBI. The one I use is from the FBI. So those are two reliable versions which can be attributed to the government.

If you are going to understand the anomaly you are discussing, then validating the source and understanding the medium it is derived from is essential.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by 911files]

So, if I'm getting this right, you're suggesting then that CNN receives a tape from FBI,
whereupon they proceed to manipulate same tape!!!
Why would they do such a thing?
Wouldn't this amount to being a criminal or treasonable act?

I don't understand your reasoning here!

The cogburn tape was apparently used in the Moussaoui(!) trial according to cogburn,
and, one should imagine, was therefore provided to the court by the FBI , as it was the
FBI who confiscated the tapes from the Doubletree Hotel!

Again, I don't understand your reasoning here - as well!

Would it be fair to say that you haven't even studied the two tapes in question yet?

Because I can't quite work out what the heck you're talking about!

So, where are all the people who died on that plane? Did a UFO take the plane away along with all it's passengers including the Solictor General's wife? Come on, get real people. The economy is bad, go out and do some good for your country instead of getting all worked up with fantasy conspiracies.

Actually I have. I wasted a lot of time with the CNN footage. That is why I got the best available footage available, the original DVD's prepared by the FBI. The Court copy is obviously a good copy produced by the government for legal purposes. I just like using the best and understanding what I am talking about before accusing someone of a crime.

Originally posted by 911files
Actually I have. I wasted a lot of time with the CNN footage. That is why I got the best available footage available, the original DVD's prepared by the FBI. The Court copy is obviously a good copy produced by the government for legal purposes. I just like using the best and understanding what I am talking about before accusing someone of a crime.

So you must have compared the CNN and the cogburn footage with the "best
available footage available, the original DVD's prepared by the FBI", right!

With regard to the sequence of events we are talking about, is it possible for you to
inform us what the 'original DVD's prepared by the FBI' shows us, which differs from
what is observable in the CNN and cogburn tapes, with reference to the incident in
question?

Or better still, would it be possible for you to embed the particular sections in these original FBI DVD's, in your next post, so we also can inspect these to verify the
differences that might show up in these original parts, in relation to the said incidence
at 09:34:06, and as shown in the cogburn tape!!

reply to post by djeminy


My thoughts exactly. I'm converting segments of the DVD's to web friendly swf files now. I also stood under the "north" camera (#9) in the spring of 2007 and made some reference video. I'm limiting the exterior cameras to the 9:15 - 11:00 am time frame and the files run around 400-500 mb each, so "save target as" may be the best method of downloading and viewing. These are uploading via ftp tonight and should be finished by morning

Dock Camera
North Camera
Reference Footage

Tomorrow I will upload some additional exterior and garage cameras.

Got words yesterday from my server that I have almost reached my usage limit,
so must wait until after 15/12 to download again.

But perhaps you could just tell me if the original footage shows the same white object,
as what is visible in the cogburn video at the same pertinent place on 09:34:06, please!

This is actually the only thing I'm interested in personally, and would like to see confirmed
at this particular moment!

[edit on 5-12-2008 by djeminy]

reply to post by djeminy


Yes, the Cogburn version matches the original well and the "white dot" (car) is easily traceable for several seconds prior to the fireball along I-395.

My intent in my responses is to convey that you just can't take the one camera view and reach any conclusions when what you are seeing is in reality only a segment of the multiplexer system. I am referring to the "freeze" that Preston is focusing on. In the late 90's I worked extensively with multiplexed systems tracking internal losses for Amoco Oil Company. The "freezing" is a common phenomenon and is simply a system artifact. In the case of the Doubletree, there are 11 channels feeding into a VHS tape set up to record for 24 hours. That means the quality of each frame is going to be rather poor. By viewing all of the 10 channels, it is possible to replicate the recording sequence and verify the errors are not due to tampering, but systematic errors in the system. It is also possible to recover some frames from other channels when the tracking errors occur. For example, the "north" camera shifts to a garage camera a few minutes before impact. The frames for the "north" camera are not lost at this time, but laid onto another channels allocated area.

I will over the next week get segments of all 10 of the DVD's converted and uploaded. Compare a few of these at the same time when a "freeze" or "shift" occurs and you'll see better what I am referring to.

posted by 911files
My intent in my responses is to convey that you just can't take the one camera view and reach any conclusions when what you are seeing is in reality only a segment of the multiplexer system. I am referring to the "freeze" that Preston is focusing on.

No I also focused on the strange reversal of the tape at 9:34:42 which you ignored. All of your jabbering about multiple cameras and such, clouds the issue that the video in question was taken from one single location. The cogburn video allegedly taken from the Zacharias Mossouai Trial did not jump from camera to camera as you seem to be implying. So what manner of disinformation and confusion are you deliberately throwing into the debate?

Here is the cogburn version



For some strange reason, the Doubletree video (all versions) jumps the walking pedestrian about 40 feet from frame 9:34:39 over to frame 9:34:41. Obviously something is missing in between besides just one frame. Perhaps 3 or 4 frames are missing from the 'freeze'?





Then after the next frame, the counter inexplicably jumps from frame 9:34:42 to 9:32:43 and then to 9:34:44. (all versions)

reply to post by SPreston


Preston, this is not uncommon. Let me get a few more cameras uploaded and you'll see better what I am talking about.

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by djeminy

 

Yes, the Cogburn version matches the original well and the "white dot" (car) is easily traceable for several seconds prior to the fireball along I-395.

Why are you deliberately lying here, 911files?

You know perfectly well that the white object looks anything but a car, and that it is
only traceable for a second or so!

You SHOULD know, that a second or so is a much shorter time-span than "several
seconds" - as you imply! Should you not, 911files?

And you should also know that if it was a car 'traceable for several seconds', as you
write, then this same "car" should also be present in the CNN video showing the same
place and the same moments! Should you not, 911files?

But as you SHOULD be able to see, and should be able to verify for yourself, there's
no "car" or no white object of any kind to be seen in the CNN video's first clip, showing
the same moments! Do you see any "car" there, 911files?

No!

If you were an honest person, why in heavens name would you even for a second
contemplate to refrain from mentioning this vital observation, let alone choose to completely ignore this amazing discrepancy all together!!

Well, the clear and simple answer is: You wouldn't if you were an honest good bloke!

You're trying to conceal the obvious, 911files.

It appear there's no clean flour in your bag, 911files!

What a shame.

Now see, here I thought you folks wanted to know the "truth", but I guess you are really not interested in that. By the way, the swf files are horrible, so I am going to have to attempt another format to maintain quality. I have the full videos converted to mpg, but those are 1.5 gigs and I have a 1 gig file size limit on my host server. I'll come back and do an update when I have good quality files up at AAL77.COM.

I had worked on a series of high quality frame shots tracking the car for a number of seconds prior to impact, but I can see ya'll are not really interested in that. So I'll leave you to your fantasy land.

Originally posted by 911files
Now see, here I thought you folks wanted to know the "truth", but I guess you are really not interested in that. By the way, the swf files are horrible, so I am going to have to attempt another format to maintain quality. I have the full videos converted to mpg, but those are 1.5 gigs and I have a 1 gig file size limit on my host server. I'll come back and do an update when I have good quality files up at AAL77.COM.

I had worked on a series of high quality frame shots tracking the car for a number of seconds prior to impact, but I can see ya'll are not really interested in that. So I'll leave you to your fantasy land.

I read in another thread that you're on your way over to JREF - the darkest, most
ominous, sinister site on the whole worldwide net!

A site where no form for goodness of any kind is to be found.

Truth, honesty, logic and reason are completely unknown concepts over there. People
who from time to time have tried to present these qualities to their forum, have in
all cases been rejected with scorn and derision. Many have been banned.

I,m sure you'll fit in much better with these guys over there, than you would here.

Good luck..... John Farmer!




[edit on 7-12-2008 by djeminy]

I can so easily understand why non-truthers don't want to deal with the evidence
presented in this thread, but, on the other hand, find it really hard to comprehend why
truthers also seems to suffer same antipathy, as the above mentioned mob!

(Bar Preston, of course)!

Could the awful truth really be, that 'truthers' don't really mind talking about the 'truth',
as long as it only amounts to just talking about it, but as soon as push comes to shove,
As soon as THE TRUTH shows its "ugly" face, they immediately recoil and back off!!

Could the awful truth really be, that THE AWFUL TRUTH is really feared by non-truthers and 'truthers' alike!!

Nah....... that couldn't really be the truth, could it!!!!

posted by djeminy
I can so easily understand why non-truthers don't want to deal with the evidence presented in this thread, but, on the other hand, find it really hard to comprehend why truthers also seems to suffer same antipathy, as the above mentioned mob!

Nah. Many truthers are avoiding this thread because they have been burned before. Because of many reasons, this Doubletree video is not a very good piece of evidence; primarily because it was in the hands of the PRIMARY SUSPECT for so long, and it is not very clear for viewing.

I do not blame them. We really have no clue in what way the video has been altered. Nor do we know the objectives desired from such an alteration. Like the missile at the Pentagon and no plane at the WTC postulates, they may just want us to stick our necks out a mile chasing after their red herrings.

Although the parking lot security videos are similar, at least the 5 frames were leaked early on, limiting further changes to the two videos. And those frauds were poorly done and unfinished, exposed completely by the leaker as he probably intended.

The faithful defenders of the OFFICIAL STORY are completely something else. They totally avoid such issues as this; anything which might prove them wrong, because they are the most intellectually dishonest people who ever lived.

I moved this post to its proper on-topic thread and to bring forward some older material for our new members,

posted by Soloist
Unfortunately SPreston has assumed too much by attempting to speak as to what I was referring to, there is that video BUT there is also the Doubletree vid which show the tail of the plane heading towards the Pentagon as it smashes into the building. What that video does NOT show is the plane at any point pulling up to "fly over" the building.

They will try and say the view is blocked, but you can see the plane is far to close and too low to pull up over the building anyhow.

They will also say that one has been "photoshopped" (LOL) if you don't believe their first (blocked view) lie.

posted by Soloist
Correct, the truck is not the plane. The tail of the plane can be seen outpacing the truck at an extremely high rate of speed right up to the explosion. Notice it does not pull up or "fly over" the Pentagon.

posted by tezzajw
Please define 'extremely fast' with a numerical speed. Show your calculations. Remember that you must be able to come up with a figure around 500 mph so you can keep on clutching your official story.

posted by Orion7911
Tezz... soloist has yet another conundrum to deal with in that video he wants to use as evidence to support his claims.

The video is NOT in NORMAL speed... in fact it appears to be at least 2X speed.

which means if he's describing this so-called plane he's been able to identify as going EXTREMELY FAST and we know that the OCT says the plane was going 500+mph (as you point out is already a problem for him), then the speed in that video would have to be close to or over 1000 mph right?

In which case, how could he have possibly seen an object he claims to be a plane, going 1000 mph?

Perhaps the aircraft with the visible 'tail' you allude to in the video is already above the 77 ft tall roof of the Pentagon and does not need to pull up Soloist. Since the blocking elevated freeway is much closer than the Pentagon, it is likely the Pentagon roof is much lower in the video than you assume Soloist. The explosion flash and cloud rose hundreds of feet into the air according to eyewitnesses and the alleged official parking lot security videos.

Why is the 'blocked' view a lie Soloist? The elevated freeway is quite obviously 'blocking' the view of the Pentagon and the light poles from the camera eye at the Doubletree. Even the much higher Naval Annex (over 100 feet higher on a hill) which the decoy aircraft flew over is not visible in the video, is it Soloist?

Actually going to google maps street view shows us that the speed limit on Army Navy Drive looking east, which the Doubletree Hotel fronts on is 30 mph. Any government loyalist can go to the address at the top of the screenshot and check if I photoshopped the 30 mph sign.

Your side photoshops lies and disinformation; not ours.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/257c42ccd7b7.jpg[/atsimg]

That street in front of the Doubletree in the video with the cars zipping by is Army Navy Drive. The cars are zipping by much too fast for 30 mph. And the cars are turning from the parking lot entrance much too fast.

1:50 alleged tail and explosion


The video is double speed or more. Good catch. That alleged 'tail' is certainly going much too slow for the official 535 mph Flight 77. However it could be much closer to matching the actual much slower speed of the decoy aircraft flying from Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and above the light poles and overhead highway sign.

That would explain how the Doubletree Hotel camera picked up Soloist's alleged 'tail' when the official aircraft was supposed to be inches above the lawn and the 44 foot tail stabilizer over 30 feet below the Pentagon roof level.

Perhaps this video did capture the flyover and the entire aircraft body and engines are already above the Pentagon roof which we cannot see in the video. Perhaps the slow-moving decoy aircraft turned to the north behind those trees or the 9-11 perps who had this video in their possession for years photoshopped the departing aircraft and 'tail' right out of the video.

Thank you Soloist for bringing this to our attention.