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.

 

Pentagon 5 Frame Anomaly Solved?, maybe.

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
at first i wanted to believe the truthers were on to something but i watched the natl geo doc about 9/11 .....pretty much took all the air outta the truthers accusations ! truthers to me are about as fanatical about this subject as the hoaxers who believe we diddnt land on the moon ! cultural vandalism , historical denial of the facts to meet there twisted agenda ! ignorance is bliss !




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
think about what you just said, think very hard..

your discrediting truthers.... because of a TELEVISION PROGRAM?




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
By the way any credible CCTV system in this decade would be a DVR(digital video recorder) which all have digital watermarks to prevent against any altering of the video, and yes that feature can be disabled.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I'm no electronics expert but I have two digital watches, one slows about five minutes every 3 or 4 months, the other is faster by 5 minutes every couple of weeks. Is it not possible that the time codes and the frame rates have clocks of differing accuracy.

I don't think these time discrepancies are 'smoking gun' evidence on their own. However taken as part of a whole, they are more to add to the mountain of evidence that the US Government is still implementing an enhanced Operation Northwoods style campaign against its citizens and those of the world with the help of other governments and institutions around the world.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Why it says Sep. 12th?
Wasn't it on 11th?

SNC.

[edit on 9/2/2009 by snc24]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
one question...
why is the date sept 12 ?

this "attack" was on the same day as the WTC bombings right ??



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by astronut68
at first i wanted to believe the truthers were on to something but i watched the natl geo doc about 9/11 .....pretty much took all the air outta the truthers accusations ! truthers to me are about as fanatical about this subject as the hoaxers who believe we diddnt land on the moon ! cultural vandalism , historical denial of the facts to meet there twisted agenda ! ignorance is bliss !


A MSM TV show gave you your opinion. At first I didn't want to believe the truthers were on to anything, but I did over seven years of research, and it pretty much took all the air outta my ignorance.

I want to believe your post was sarcasm or irony, otherwise I'm going to go running and screaming into Alex Jones' arms and beg for a cuddle.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Why people feel they are entitled to security camera footage makes me chuckle. So, just because a group of people feel there was some secret coverup, that entitles you to see footage from a crime site? No, it does not. You are not entitled to see all the footage, I don't know why people feel that they are, or that they must be covering something up by following what is probably standard procedure for all crime cases.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by astronut68
at first i wanted to believe the truthers were on to something but i watched the natl geo doc about 9/11 .....pretty much took all the air outta the truthers accusations ! truthers to me are about as fanatical about this subject as the hoaxers who believe we diddnt land on the moon ! cultural vandalism , historical denial of the facts to meet there twisted agenda ! ignorance is bliss !


So, you watched some propaganda and now your opinion is changed?

Have you ever heard of the straw man fallacy?


AWD

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Why does the time stamp say Sept 12?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWD
Why does the time stamp say Sept 12?



The same reason it says "plane" and "impact".

The part of the attack that was caught on the security camera was edited the next day.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

posted by king9072
haha there's no "20 second" frame?

What always makes me laugh, is that there's such a huge debate about what hit the pentagon. And the entire debate could be ended by released just one of the at very least 10 cameras that recorded footage of the event. But they don't release anything.

Then the part that actually makes me laugh out loud, fools come to this forum and defend the OS blindly, not even stopping for a second to consider the logic. If the government had nothing to hide, why is it hiding EVERYTHING?

Hmmmm...

lol.. god some people are stupid and ignorant.


Indeed. In 2002, somebody unknown 'leaked' 5 still frames from a parking lot security video of what was supposed to be Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. The date time stamps at the bottom were off by 32 hours. The Defense Department and FBI denied any knowledge of them.

In 2006 several FOIA lawsuits were filed for the original videos, and the Defense Department lost and gave them to Judicial Watch which made them public. There were no date time stamps on either video.

Source 1

Source 2

At the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial, we somehow ended up with two extra still frames. (#5 impact and #6 impact zoomed and still with their date time stamps off by 32 hours) There is no explanation why #5 is cropped at the top nor how the government ended up with these two frames, when they claimed originally that they had no knowledge of the 'leaked' still frames. Maybe their lies caught up with them?

Official frames for trial

And somehow we ended up with 5 extra zoomed still frames, with the misdated by 32 hours time date stamps at the bottoms still intact. Amazing. They expected the trial jurors to believe that this was original valid evidence?

As anyone can easily see, the government photoshopped these 7 zoomed still frames for the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial also, because the images are zoomed and the date time stamps are not.

In other words, as far as we know, these zoomed images were not around back in 2002 when the other still frames were 'leaked', and the government 'created' these zoomed images especially for the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial.

Our wonderful government manufactures evidence to protect itself or to harm others when it needs to.




My gosh. Looks like we have a fire way up here on the north end of the building. How did that happen?





Here are both videos released in 2006.
Notice that there are no zoomed frames on either video.






[edit on 9/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Nice investigative work. I love the internet and the ability to have access to any and all opinions.

It gives us all an opportunity to expand our knowledge - and at the very least our access to information.

Keep it coming everyone!



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Why people feel they are entitled to security camera footage makes me chuckle. So, just because a group of people feel there was some secret coverup, that entitles you to see footage from a crime site? No, it does not. You are not entitled to see all the footage, I don't know why people feel that they are, or that they must be covering something up by following what is probably standard procedure for all crime cases.


Even though nobody has been charged or tried in absentia the case is apparently "closed", new evidence is ignored (as conspiracy).

Since it's no longer an open investigation there would be no compromise.. which is why there are dozens of post incident crime scene photos released into the public domain.

So we should be entitled to see at least some footage under the FOIA.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Well unfortunately, the further we dig, the more evidence pops up. I mean, I'm not sure about you, but if my government successfully planned and carried out the murder of almost 3000 people, I'm PRETTTTTY sure I'd like to know.

As for the evidence, hopefully this gains more momentum and eventually this will be necessary to release as evidence in this case.

I don't understand your demeanor in this as well. It almost seems as if you're mocking this by stating you're "chuckling" to yourself. Do you NOT want to know the truth about this? Or are you simply just chuckling because you think you know more about basic law than the rest of us?

Just tryin to figure out what you're getting at dude...



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

I wish not to argue about this much longer due to the fact that anyone who has half of a brain should realize what is in plain sight. If you want to honestly believe that one of the most advanced and important buildings on american soil is only equipped with petty 1 fps video cameras than your kidding yourself. There should be a multitude of cameras along the roof with substantial views of the front yard, etc. which would have seen this "plane" ALOT better.


No, learn to read please. It had a decent camera set to a low frame rate. Don't tell me about "honestly believing" that which makes perfect sense.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


is that a glimpse of a missl.... errr.. plane in video 1 at 1 min 27 sec and in Video 2 at 25 seconds?

Seems kinda small for an airliner



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Originally posted by jprophet420
It looks to me like it recorded 5 fames in 4 seconds and they weren't perfectly spaced apart. To think this isn't possible or likely indicates to me you've never worked with security cameras, as this is a highly likely scenario. My home surveillance camera is like that and the ones I've worked on are like that.

Beyond that the frames are definitely doctored as they have the wrong date on them.


The F.B.I. guy who analysed the video stated it was set for 1 FPS, if it recorded twice for 17:37:19 the frames would be identical, it was not set (apparently) to record 4 frames in 5 seconds, two frames within the same second shows it was not set for 1 FPS, also we are not talking about the CCTV camera now but the F.B.I.`s equipment that time stamped it, and converted the file from VHS to MPEG, which must have registered at two frames in one second whilst doing this.

/cheers.


If the camera is not perfectly on the clock time -- it's going to occasionally record two frames in one second.

The reason you have weird fractions in video tapes, like 29.96 and such, is to avoid exactly syncing with electrical currents. Since electricity is at 60 hz a second -- you don't want to be on an even multiple with that frequency. It most likely has to do with interference and line noise.

If you do audio editing -- you'll notice they have filters for 60 and 50 hz hums, The 50 is for Europe, or the PAL standard, and electricity there is at 50hz and their video is just off of 25 FPS -- NOT exactly 25 frames per second.


>> I'm not sure if the video is doctored or not. Security cameras can have a lot of artifacts depending on how old the tape is. But with the perspective, the plane pictured DOES NOT look like a large passenger plane, looks about the size of a DC 9 or smaller.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
haha there's no "20 second" frame?

What always makes me laugh, is that there's such a huge debate about what hit the pentagon. And the entire debate could be ended by released just one of the at very least 10 cameras that recorded footage of the event. But they don't release anything.

Then the part that actually makes me laugh out loud, fools come to this forum and defend the OS blindly, not even stopping for a second to consider the logic. If the government had nothing to hide, why is it hiding EVERYTHING?

Hmmmm...

lol.. god some people are stupid and ignorant.



That's it in a nutshell. I wouldn't be so harsh on PEOPLE, because this nonsense we involve ourselves in does not feed the family, and we've accomplished diddly and squat, so far. But it is a matter of principle.

However, on days when I argue with the 50th Anti-Truther, who brings up this guys theory about Big Foot, as if one outlier is going to help the patchwork of lies that is the Government story -- yeah, then I perhaps would be harsher.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
very interesting, hopefully this is a step in the right direction of prosecuting all those involved.

good find, s & f'd



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join