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.

 

911 Mysteries Creator - Sofia Shafquat sued for doctoring copyright video!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox




Please stay on topic. The video that Sofia used was doctored. There is no denying it. This is one of the reasons why she is getting sued.

Thank you.


Thanks Cameron to bring a dishonest person to our attention. We will be careful about the information from this source.

NOW,

There is one more doctored video, it is SO OBVIOUSLY doctored that even a child can spot it. I am talking about the officially released video of Pentagon. With TIME ROLLING BACKWARDS & padestrian walking with INFINITE velocity. Maybe Craig et al can post that video here to refresh your memory.

My question to you Camron is, Craig et al have been trying to elicit your response regarding OFFICIALLY RELEASED DOCTORED VIDEO, but you always turned blind eye to that. But when an unknown person is caught doctoring video you are shouting from the roof top. I dont understand this behavior.

Why do you think it is ok for the govt to doctor the video?

Why do you not display similar enthusiasm, when it is pointed out you that officially released pentagon video is obviously doctored?

Don't you understand that Govt doctoring the video has FAR DARKER implications than a regular guy doing the same? Do u REALLY FOR REAL don't understand the implications Cameron?




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Cameron,

Do you have an ALTERNATIVE explanation for official pentagon video with TIME ROLLING BACKWARDS & a person walking with INFINITE SPEED?

If you can prove that OFFICIALLY RELEASED video as NOT DOCTORED, then please share that with us.

If you agree that, OFFICIALLY RELEASED pentagon video is INDEED DOCTORED, please show us your posts where you showed even slightest enthusiasm in bringing that to people's attention.

you have only these two options. In fact you have a third option of just pretending to not have read this post, but I dont think you will exercise that option.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neil_86
 


First of all, please read the OP and read the title of this thread. Any further attempts to derail this thread and I will report it.

There are so many threads with the rants of no planers like CIT, PFT, and other groups that are out of touch with reality. My time has been limited here due to the fact that there is nothing but the same old recycled - debunked trash. Including the endless CIT drivel. CIT's act is old and no longer interests me.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Can you link to a video where we can hear these in the towers?

"9/11 Eyewitness". The very video we're talking about in this thread.


I think you should be able to see the problem I'm going to have with those videos considering what this thread is about.


I was going to address a few other points in your last post, but I don't want to take the thread too far off topic. I should probably save those arguments for another thread.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I remember having posted on this subject before in these forums. Rick Siegal has been upset about the "tampering" with the audio track of a segment from his video for some time now.

Personally, I wonder why he is bothering with this, since the segment in question is really not the focus of some point being made at the time it is used. It seems more of a transitional use of the footage with the addition of a beefed up sound track from another source added to create an atmosphere which would encapsulate what was happening that day.

People who want to hear the original audio with detailed analysis of the sequence of detonations just have to go directly to Siegal's original video, which, by the way, is intended to show that the buildings were taken down as a result of a controlled demolition using explosives.

This situation is very unfortunate. I respect both parties in the dispute and wish some compromise could be worked out between them, maybe a disclaimer of some kind at the beginning of the disputed video would have avoided this situation. I don't think there was an intention to deceive people, just an unfortunate (and probably regretted) use of "cinematic license" to tell a story.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by neil_86
Do you have an ALTERNATIVE explanation for official pentagon video with TIME ROLLING BACKWARDS & a person walking with INFINITE SPEED?

If you can prove that OFFICIALLY RELEASED video as NOT DOCTORED, then please share that with us.

Could you be more specific about which official pentagon video? I have analysed both MPEG videos from the security checkpoint in an attempt to debunk SPreston's wild claims. I found nothing suspicious in either situation. I have relevant expertise in video analysis and security camera installation, although I am not formally qualified.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
People who want to hear the original audio with detailed analysis of the sequence of detonations just have to go directly to Siegal's original video, which, by the way, is intended to show that the buildings were taken down as a result of a controlled demolition using explosives.

Actually it wasn't. As far as I know that was not produced by Siegal, and was in fact just a licensed use of his footage. The person that produced that video then went on to "license" Sofia to use this footage, without any authorization to do so. The complaint filed gives more information on this.

I don't know of Rick's actual beliefs, but I have seen it mentioned that he is somewhat of an agnostic on the matter.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by exponent]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
People who want to hear the original audio with detailed analysis of the sequence of detonations just have to go directly to Siegal's original video, which, by the way, is intended to show that the buildings were taken down as a result of a controlled demolition using explosives.

Exactly. That sums up his footage in a nutshell.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Could you be more specific about which official pentagon video? I have analysed both MPEG videos from the security checkpoint in an attempt to debunk SPreston's wild claims. I found nothing suspicious in either situation.


I think neil_86 is referring to the doubletrees video with the time anomaly (timer jumping from 9:34:39 back to 9:32:46 and then forward to 9:34:47) as well as a pedestrian appearing to move about 15 metres in 6 hundreths of a second (not infinite speed but about 55 miles an hour!)

I have no experience of CCTV setups though - have you analysed the video and is there a simple explanation of those anomalies?

*** Edit: Please note that no intention to derail thread was meant by this post ***


[edit on 6/6/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by neil_86
 


Answer: Cameron is not looking for the truth.

It's just like the recent Professor Jones paper on thermite. All the GL's are crying for "peer-review" and "transparency". But tell them that the NIST, ASCE, FEMA reports were not "peer-reviewed" and/or "transparent" and they don't care.

Typical hypocriticalism.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
I think neil_86 is referring to the doubletrees video

Ah I see, well this should be somewhat discounted by the fact that it's neither 'official' nor from the Pentagon. I can't give you a concrete reason for that anomaly, it's certainly interesting and would usually be an indicator of some sort of ring buffer problem. This video is transcoded from VHS however which is used as a continuous recording medium, so without knowing more I cannot tell you what the deal is.

Best guess? Motion detection activation. This sort of skip is quite common on older systems.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
It's just like the recent Professor Jones paper on thermite. All the GL's are crying for "peer-review" and "transparency". But tell them that the NIST, ASCE, FEMA reports were not "peer-reviewed" and/or "transparent" and they don't care.


You're not mentioning the obvious. Steven Jones is one person. Those groups that you mentioned consist of many people, so the reports were pretty much peer-reviewed while they were working on them.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
You're not mentioning the obvious. Steven Jones is one person. Those groups that you mentioned consist of many people, so the reports were pretty much peer-reviewed while they were working on them.


Ah but you see, they're all working for NIST.

Well ok they're working for companies that are working for NIST.

So that makes them suspicious.

We need a new investigation.

But not by the government.

Because as reasoned above, anyone working for them is suspicious.

Someone else who has the power to compel people to testify and can punish deception.

Batman.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
You're not mentioning the obvious. Steven Jones is one person. Those groups that you mentioned consist of many people, so the reports were pretty much peer-reviewed while they were working on them.



It doesn't matter if the NIST report was written by thousands of scientists. It still was not "peer-reviewed" by outside sources. period.

Also, there were 9 scientists. Not just Jones.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


You can't be serious.
I watched the video again after reading your comment, and it's pretty obvious that the sounds of explosions were put in there to decieve. No serious documentary maker would have allowed those noises to have been overdubbed in the video at that moment.

edit - clarification

[edit on 6/6/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


There sure were alot of mistakes in the recent WTC 7 report for it to be "peer-reviewed" thouroughly.

Also. The very definition of "peer-review" excludes anyone working on said report being able to in-house "peer-review".


Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.


en.wikipedia.org...

"I wish there would be a peer-review of this (re the NIST report)" - Dr. Quintiere - Former NIST head scientist



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
There sure were alot of mistakes in the recent WTC 7 report for it to be "peer-reviewed" thouroughly.

Really? The errata seems to be pretty sparse. Perhaps you could tell me how many mistakes there were and how many you expect?


Also. The very definition of "peer-review" excludes anyone working on said report being able to in-house "peer-review".

You are quoting the peer review process used for a typical journal submitted paper. Not for the results of years of study and tens of millions of investigation. Peer review is applied to this sort of publication by counter-publications. So far the best I am aware of from the truth movement is titled "14 points of agreement". Not a strong start.


"I wish there would be a peer-review of this (re the NIST report)" - Dr. Quintiere - Former NIST head scientist

Indeed, a man who thinks the WTC may have fallen from fire alone. Not the best person to quote in favour of the assumption NIST lied in saying damage and fire could bring down the WTC.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Really? The errata seems to be pretty sparse. Perhaps you could tell me how many mistakes there were and how many you expect?


I would expect zero had it been "peer-reviewed" before release to the public.



You are quoting the peer review process used for a typical journal submitted paper. Not for the results of years of study and tens of millions of investigation. Peer review is applied to this sort of publication by counter-publications. So far the best I am aware of from the truth movement is titled "14 points of agreement". Not a strong start.


You are completely wrong. Go ahead and think that a report as critical as the NIST report can go un-checked and in-house reviewed.


Also, can you agree that someone outside of NIST can't really "peer-review" NIST's work? Has NIST released all their data? Has NIST released all structural documentation?

So, saying that the "truth movement" has tried and failed to review NIST is correct but deceiving in the utmost.



"I wish there would be a peer-review of this (re the NIST report)" - Dr. Quintiere - Former NIST head scientist


Indeed, a man who thinks the WTC may have fallen from fire alone. Not the best person to quote in favour of the assumption NIST lied in saying damage and fire could bring down the WTC.


It goes to show that even one of their own questions them.



[edit on 6-6-2009 by Foxy Nutz]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
I would expect zero had it been "peer-reviewed" before release to the public.

Wow, that's a heck of a high standard! Unfortunately we do expect mistakes to occur in science, and that's just part of the nature of things. I assume you've read the NIST errata?


You are completely wrong. Go ahead and think that a report as critical as the NIST report can go un-checked and in-house reviewed.

Who should have reviewed the NIST report then? It took millions and millions of dollars, years of computing time and a lot of hard work by thousands of engineers. Who's going to pay to do that all again just in case they made mistakes that they haven't already corrected?


Also, can you agree that someone outside of NIST can't really "peer-review" NIST's work?

Not at all, NISTs work is as open as I expect and many people have already attempted to review it.


Has NIST released all their data? Has NIST released all structural documentation?

I am unaware of any request NIST has denied which they have the authority to grant. They released their SAP2000 models some time ago, and ae911truth made and were given the price for NISTs LS-DYNA models also. I don't know if they actually stumped up the cash but considering how much money ae911truth is trying to bring in I hope they did.

Have you requested anything from NIST? Was it denied?


It goes to show that even one of their own questions them.

Yes he does, such is the process of science. But even he, someone who questions the "official story" with excellent credentials, finds controlled demolition theories ludicrous. Do you think it was a good idea to quote him? Do you support his viewpoint or were you just trying to hold him up as an example of someone who disagrees with NIST, even though he disagrees with you completely and NIST slightly?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I don't think that the OP is going to be too happy about where the thread is going right now. I just made my peer-review comment to try to defend him after being called a hypocrite, but I'm sure he doesn't need me to do that for him. My bad. We should get back on topic now.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic
 


I think it is on topic to show how people are hypocrites.

When it comes to anything from the Government, it's ok to not be peer-reviewed, corrected, accurate etc.

But, if it comes from the "truth movement", they better damn well cross every T and dot every I or we have CameronFoxes who will jump at the opportunity to spout "Hey, look, the Truth movement F'd up".

So, very much on topic as far as showing people's true motives.


As far as being on-topic with "9/11 eyewitness" etc. I thought both films did a horrible job at showing an "Inside Job".



[edit on 6-6-2009 by Foxy Nutz]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join