Absolute Proof of Missing Frames and Tampered Pentagon Footage.. object and blast on screen at the s

page: 1
74
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+50 more 
posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
If these clips, analysis and evidence (only a few of hundreds) alone aren't proof and evidence of tampering, editing, photoshopping and that the entire Pentagon/911 OCT is a LIE and inside job, then I'm not sure what will ever convince people other than the perps themselves coming forward and admitting it.

frames missing analysis and tampered footage also shows alleged FUELSELAGE and EXPLOSION on the screen at the SAME TIME as well as a FADE UP of the EXPLOSION!?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

video documentary/analysis
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


Most that have done little or no research, are in denial or part of the cover-up as it appears Mr Fox and his minions are here, claim its NOT obvious, and this is hardly evidence of anything.

With this type of blatant denial, ignorance or lack of common sense which runs rampid in the majority of the people today, is it any wonder the numbers mr fox references are stagnant?

Its just the sign of the times imo, and a conspiracy of this magnitude considering so much new evidence has been revealed only recently, it may take more time for it to sink into the mass consciousness or priority over peoples normal life problems and global economic collapse.




Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.






[edit on 17-2-2009 by Crakeur]




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Star & Flag for sure!!


Good youtube footage dude!

Thats the 1st time I'd seen the helicopter footage!
Definitely a missile

[edit on 17-2-2009 by zerozero00]


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Did you ever stop to think.....that the frame rate of the camera just might have something to do with this supposed anomaly?

The little weenie in the video thinks he sleuthed this out on his own. He believes that the people that supposedly were responsible for the most comprehensive plot and cover-up in history forgot to fix their own video and allowed him to find it.

What a genius.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Another thing to put on the list, I reckon.



Originally posted by pteridine
the most comprehensive plot and cover-up in history


Maah, there are others in history that are pretty spectacular as well.

And yeah, it was kind of a lame cover up. It still took some seven or so years, a complete turn in office for the criminals to act it out and a hell of a lot of people, world wide, investigating the deal so it was nearly squeaky clean.

But now we know.


[edit on 17-2-2009 by Raud]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Did you ever stop to think.....that the frame rate of the camera just might have something to do with this supposed anomaly?

The little weenie in the video thinks he sleuthed this out on his own. He believes that the people that supposedly were responsible for the most comprehensive plot and cover-up in history forgot to fix their own video and allowed him to find it.
What a genius.


did you ever stop to think that it didn't mr genius?

and you refuse to acknowlegdge THE PERPS might not have been able to FIX EVERYTHING, or that they were much more INCOMPETENT than you're giving them credit for. Perhaps again the PERPS/govt/media didn't think what they were releasing could be scrutinized or analyzed to the level, extent or caliber it has.

Afterall, If they were so competent and meticulous, there would never be as many ANOMALIES, CONTRADICTIONS or UNANSWERED QUESTIONS that there are that SLIPPED THROUGH! DUH...

so why do you think so many are beginning to awaken and agree 911 was an inside job? I don't think I know of a consipiracy theory that has THIS MUCH evidence, science, and facts or even basic common sense to SEE it, than this one.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerozero00
Star & Flag for sure!!


Good youtube footage dude!

Thats the 1st time I'd seen the helicopter footage!
Definitely a missile

[edit on 17-2-2009 by zerozero00]


actually I should point out that I believe the helicopter footage is fake.
You have to replay it a few times, but the explosion is the most telling sign its fake... its an obvious cgi.

so other than the helicopter footage, what that "sleuth" explains and shows has alot of merit. so focus on whats illustrated and analyzed in the first portion of the video.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
pteridine's signature



Never pet a burning dog


It appears that common sense amongst other things evades this character and possibly his/her friends, i'll leave it at that.

Great post OP, S&F, ive never seen the chopper footage either, the collision part looks a bit fakeish to me but then thats probably the grainy video? Perhaps that can be opended up for deabate.

Excellent, refreshing angle with evidence on a much debated part of 9/11, lacked analysis of the "origonal" footage the FBI released of the "plane" behind the gate pillar thing, still great tho.

[edit on 17/2/2009 by phushion]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Hey matrix great videos you posted! I especially liked the 1st and 3rd. What got me to question the offical story years ago was the fact that we were expected to believe a hijacker was skilled enough to hit the pentagon with the precision it was hit IN A HUGE 757!!!! There is no way I believe that. The 3rd vid reinforced my belief. Flag for you!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


S&F. Thanks for posting. I had never seen the helicopter footage before either. Just one more piece of evidence.


And the fact that the "fuselage" sat there through 39 forward clicks and DIDN'T MOVE until after the explosion. Ha! Good stuff.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


The fact you believe the helicopter footage is fake does seem to prove my point!
From the "Fake" footage you can clearly see its not a 757!

The other footage I have seen over a period of time, just because someone has taken the time to make a youtube video about the frames missing doesn't mean its something new!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by zerozero00
 


It's new in the forum of debate and analysis, over the past 7 years of looking into 9/11 there both pieces of footage ive never seen, where did this come from? I recall the FBI only released 4 or 5 frames of the lawn clip to start with then eventually released a couple of seconds which was pretty much a few before and after the impact showing the "plane" tail behind the pillar next/near to the lawn.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I've only recently started to get interested in the 911 theories, have watched a lot of video lately, read a lot of threads, etc..., am not expert (or even approaching it) but that helicopter footage is probably one of the best I've seen. Definitely looks like a missile...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
actually I should point out that I believe the helicopter footage is fake.
You have to replay it a few times, but the explosion is the most telling sign its fake... its an obvious cgi.


Agreed upon.
But the question that comes to me is: why?
I mean, with the evidence at hand, what is the point of faking it?

Totally pointless...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Trixie,
Be sure to look at the evidence you provided. The captions on the screen, as we are led through the "evidence," say that part of the image of the plane is still showing when we see the explosion. Note "part of." Now, for someone with any technical sense at all, this means that the security cam is still making the new image while the old image is still in the ccd. Security cams have low frame rates so thay don't have to store a lot of data. Please tell the rocket scientist in the video how these things work lest he damage his mouse from over clicking.

Would you like to explain the partial image now?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by phushion
 


Phus,
Explaining away a fake video with graininess shows your expertise. Can you now explain the "partial image" of the plane?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
There is definately a difference in frame rate between a time lapse security camera and a broadcast helicopter news camera.

However, BOTH can be altered.

There is enough framerate in the broadcast spec camera on that helicopter to see an airplane flying at 500mph, as everyone has seen on the videos of the WTC towers. It is far less likely that at least 5 major networks using their own cameras and angles and feeds to their headquarters, would all be seeing something fabricated hitting those towers.

The helicopter video is just that, a video, not a recording from a live broadcast as the WTC plane hits were. That particular video could easily be altered. And it would not take much effort to do so using broadcast production equipment found in every single television station's production room. And in 2001, that equipment would be sophisticated enough to alter the video to a point where instead of a plane, there is a missle.

Non-linear video editing computers used in broadcast and video production facilities are quite sophisticated, and produce extremely high end results.

The television show "Babylon 5" at its begining used Amiga computers to generate all those space scenes and ships that looked like huge spider-crabs and battle scenes. Those computers were quite inferior, yet they produced high end CG that was quite advanced for their time.

That helicopter video sat around for years until recently it pops up on someone's youtube channel. That in itself is very very suspect. If that footage was important and clearly showed a missile instead of an airplane, the tv station or production crew would have published that the very day it was shot. The "missle" in that video seems to pause for a few frames, then proceeds to hit the Pentagon....a missile does NOT pause mid-flight. However a computer glitch during a rendering CAN cause that effect.

Im not saying that its not plausible that there was something else besides an airplane that hit the Pentagon, but to use that helicopter shot which was not seen on any network on that day, and is but a recording, delayed in its publication for years, it is indeed highly subject to being altered and is suspect in my book.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I just think that at first, the footage (taken by helicopter) is a bit jerky and so. Then, when the "plane" comes, it is all smooth and with alot of frames per second... It does not only look like CGI, it looks like crappy CGI.

And yes, that this footage is never before seen makes it ultra-suspicious.

I think we can disregard that part.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 

Be sure to look at the evidence you provided. The captions on the screen, as we are led through the "evidence," say that part of the image of the plane is still showing when we see the explosion. Note "part of." Now, for someone with any technical sense at all, this means that the security cam is still making the new image while the old image is still in the ccd. Security cams have low frame rates so thay don't have to store a lot of data. Please tell the rocket scientist in the video how these things work lest he damage his mouse from over clicking.
Would you like to explain the partial image now?


I'm not saying he's right, you're wrong or that it alone proves or disproves anything since I posted other links which I feel give more context, perspective and insight supporting what to me when taken in full context, is proof beyond a doubt no boeing 757, let alone flight 77, hit the pentagon.

I'm open to what you're explaining. But i submit there's alot more evidence aside from that to be considered when formulating a truly objective and educated opinion.

You obviously don't agree and think it proves nothing based upon your premise. which is fine.

So I guess we'll see how this thread progresses if at all.

i didn't really come here to convince people, i'd say i'm here more to inform and discuss with intelligent discourse, whatever evidence exists on both sides of this issue.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Did you ever stop to think.....that the frame rate of the camera just might have something to do with this supposed anomaly?

The little weenie in the video thinks he sleuthed this out on his own. He believes that the people that supposedly were responsible for the most comprehensive plot and cover-up in history forgot to fix their own video and allowed him to find it.

What a genius.
ok good point



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
So many things fake about the helicopter footage its a joke, but for one the explosion doesn't clear the roof of the building. Also, it appears that from it's perspective that the helicopter would also appear in the checkpoint footage. Either way it has been talked about here many times.

I wonder who made it though...a truther or a debunker? Was it someone clowning around or a deliberate attempt to muddy the water.





new topics
 
74
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join