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: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
That second 19sec frame does seem weird. I wonder why that blueish-green color shows up only in that frame.




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

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.


Sure. They deliberately doctored the date to fool you into thinking the frames were doctored.

Sneaky bunch those NWO operatives, aren't they?


Thats you inference good sir.


Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jprophet420


cameras from gas stations, hotels, and various other buildings in the area were confiscated for "national security" because they had a view of the event.

this is very common knowledge.


No, it's the fallacy of the "appeal to common opinion."


flight77.info...
flight77.info...
flight77.info...
flight77.info...
flight77.info...
flight77.info...

Thats the official story on the confiscated tapes.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightWonder
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.



Exactly...

It is completely ridiculous to pretend that their isn't any better videos.

Plenty of cameras should have seen the plane over the highways...

Just imagine it was a car crash...

If their were no pictures and or videos that ACTUALLY SHOWED A CAR OR A CAR CRASH.

Why would you believe it?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
1) Why does the frames say Sept -12? I think someone made these up and they are fake. First off I was at the Pentagon on that day, I did search and rescue there, and spent 30 more days there doing security. A plane did hit I can tell you that much
2) The camera being used is a RDISS System. The RDISS does not put the date and time on the bottom of the pitcher. The date and time group goes in the top right hand corner. Trust me this is what I do for a living now and have been in Afghanistan for the last six months installing the RDISS system, and other cameras.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by astronut68
 


Well...if it's on National Geographic it MUST be the truth! Seriously? Well, I'm not going to pretend I have anything more to add to this post cause I don't, but when someone makes a comment like you did I feel compelled to call you out for being lazy and brainwashed. At least do some research...Watching a TV program and then forming an opinion about something as important as this is exactly why The Powers That Be think they can give us half truths and lies and we will just slurp it all up...Wow...



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
...


...

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?
...
[edit on 9/2/09 by SPreston]


>> I haven't spent a LOT of time thinking about the Pentagon. >> I kind of stick to the WTC and the impossibility it could collapse so fast, and the anomaly of a plane losing control and it's engine being found 4 miles away with flight 93 -- quite a bounce.

Eeven if a REAL airliner hit the Pentagon -- it doesn't make the LIHOP or MIHOP scenario any less true. The CIA had more reason to take down flight 800 over Lockerbie, and they are the prime suspects -- somebody told everyone from, I think the nation of Nairobi -- not sure if I've got the right ambassador group or not, but they all diverted at the last minute.

The people who start wars like the one in Iraq, are shameless -- and if they can do that to people OVER THERE, they can do it over hear -- just find an excuse. How many kids got sick by that Chinese lead paint on toys when someone decided we had too many regulators interfering with business at the FDA? Everybody won't do the most heinous acts, but if you have a system that filters yes-men to the top, SOMEBODY will do anything.


>> Of all the ideas I've read -- the one that seems to fit with observed events, is the theory that while the plane flew right over the rooftop, the building was hit by a small missile or guided plane.

Anyone with no warning, and about 1 second to catch a plane streaking over their heads, is going to follow that plane with their eyes. The next thing they see is a giant fireball and a loud bang. Their eyes jump to that, and they don't see a plane. It's an old magicians trick and if someone is not prepared to WATCH a plane fly into a building, they aren't likely to see the trick. A thousand people could swear on a stack of bibles and wouldn't notice the second object -- or a detonation covering up the airplane.


>> That ANYONE was filming at the WTC was a stroke of luck.

But CAMERAS don't blink, and if they cropped and zoomed frames at that instant, then they might be covering up the actual commercial flight while it was in frame -- NOT anything to do with the small craft in the 5 frames of video.


>> There is ONE other very remote possibility. The camera might have an auto focus and zoom (not likely -- this is a gas station), but if some motion caught the camera, it might zoom in on that and then move back, when no motion registered anymore -- which, if you are talking about the normal motion detectors is sound based (like a bat), so the onrushing plane would register but the explosion wouldn't.

I'd just mention that, because those are the types of rebuttals that might come up.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

posted by usmc0369

1) Why does the frames say Sept -12? I think someone made these up and they are fake.


So why did the US government present the still frames at the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial, if you think they are 'faked'? And why did they create more zoomed still frames just like your 'faked' frames? It seems it is the US Government in the 'faking' business doesn't it?

Official frames for trial



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


29.97 frames per second, eh? Just to play devil's advocate here, could 2 frames from the same second be a round off error per chance? such given that lazy programming might say 'for every sequence of 30 frames, take frame #1' and call it a day?

Just throwing out possibilities.

The bluer sky could be to the amount of light. if you notice the darkening fireball is accompanied by a darkening sky.

side note.. for such a big fireball, it sure shrinks fast. 3 seconds?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I did some rather exhaustive photo analysis way back when this was sort of new material. My old thread might have some stuff that could help here:

Police Photo Enhancement software reveals Pentagon 'phantom' anomaly, smoketrails & more



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by usmc0369
1) Why does the frames say Sept -12? I think someone made these up and they are fake. First off I was at the Pentagon on that day, I did search and rescue there, and spent 30 more days there doing security. A plane did hit I can tell you that much
2) The camera being used is a RDISS System. The RDISS does not put the date and time on the bottom of the pitcher. The date and time group goes in the top right hand corner. Trust me this is what I do for a living now and have been in Afghanistan for the last six months installing the RDISS system, and other cameras.



Not trying to besmirch your profession or expertise. I'm not too convinced about the time-stamp either way.

It might be complete consistent that the Pentagon spends $2 Trillion on defense and admit to losing that much again on 9/12/2001, and can't have a camera around, or their ONLY scheduled air defense drills are all on the same day and double-booked with a terrorist plot -- it can happen.

But unless you actually inspected the debris, and know a bit about airplanes -- then your OPINION about what happened isn't going to be proof in court. Someone could have snuck an elephant and an entire circus into the Pentagon that day -- you would not know it.

LOT's of people are in the audience when the magician saws the lady in half -- and the lady, lives to do it again. So eye-witnesses can be fooled, and often are.

We have lot's more people claiming to witness alien aircraft and they have the same problem.

You see, there is this amazing Credibility Duality here with the Pentagon and our Government in this 9/11 shin dig. ON one hand, they say; trust us, we are experts. And there are some very, very smart people working in government and in intelligence. They just aren't the people on camera the next day, saying; "Nobody thought people would fly planes into buildings" without noticing just such an image is on the pertinent department's logo.

So if I start believing YOU would know, if shenanigans were going on, in a building the size of 20 WalMarts, if someone didn't think you should know. Then I'm going to have to hold you responsible for the $2 Trillion that the Pentagon lost, them confusing Bush about the WMDs, and of course, for them not bothering to have a security camera covering the grounds of a building that half the governments of the world might want to break into.

Oh, and how about making sure someone wakes up the two people on the roof who are supposed to have anti-aircraft weapons while you are at it?

If we can't get better performance from these expensive, wastes of time our alleged National Defense comes up with to justify their expensive existence -- then I think the people are owed their money back. It just seems that when they massively fail, they get more money and power -- as if that is the solution. We should have fired everyone in the building and started over with resumes.

Um, nothing personal by the way. I just find it kind of annoying that there is this air of infallibility coupled with amazing powers of plausible deniability. We are supposed to believe both at the same time -- which kind of hits the reject button on my brain.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
To answer your question about the frames and why you can’t see the plane. With the standard CCT camera even if a bird fly’s pass it, all you see is a blear.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I love the way this guy just smoothly corrects himself (fast) when he say "Missle", lol!....oops.
.
Former 9/11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon.
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 2-9-2009 by kyleplatinum]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
reply to post by Seventh
 


29.97 frames per second, eh? Just to play devil's advocate here, could 2 frames from the same second be a round off error per chance? such given that lazy programming might say 'for every sequence of 30 frames, take frame #1' and call it a day?

Just throwing out possibilities.

The bluer sky could be to the amount of light. if you notice the darkening fireball is accompanied by a darkening sky.

side note.. for such a big fireball, it sure shrinks fast. 3 seconds?


That was my point about video frames no being exactly timed with the second.

The auto-darkening is common with cameras that have auto white balancing -- so the bright flash is going to shift the median value -- or GAMMA of the video.

>> the main thing to wonder about is why they cropped and zoomed this, and why they haven't released the other video tapes. They have to be lying about other video tapes -- and that should tell you that you should NOT be believing the Pentagon on this story. They are actively trying to deceive.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
* Just wanted to add one more thing, that I previously posted on an earlier
ATS post on this subject.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jprophet420
 


cameras from gas stations, hotels, and various other buildings in the area were confiscated for "national security" because they had a view of the event.

this is very common knowledge.

[edit on 9/2/2009 by JPhish]


Hence the Elephant in the room about credibility.

The Pentagon, can CLAIM they don't have better cameras around -- but yes, we know about the ones they confiscated.

So they hide the important information, and have us play around arguing dates.


Here is my conversation with National Security Guy:

NSG: "The camera date was set wrong -- nobody really was too concerned about that before."

ME: That's fine, but what is that behind your back?

NSG: Nothing.

ME: Nothing?

NSG: There is nothing behind my back.

ME: A bunch of video tapes perhaps? What do they prove.

NSG: Nothing.

ME: Then let me see...

NSG: National Security!

ME: What could the enemy gain by knowing their attack worked after they know that it worked?

NSG: The extent of the security holes.

ME: Very tricky, revealing incompetence and claiming national security and the excuse is that you don't want the enemy to know you are REALLY, really incompetent.

As long as we can't prove incompetence, they keep their jobs to commit more crimes, and as long as we cannot prove criminal behavior, they get to hide their incompetence. They get to be in charge until proven guilty.

>> "They" meaning the many people of BushCo still around in government, and the ones who got out to nice consulting gigs.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I can explain the 1 sec discrepency:

It was an american plane flying in america for an american company. So all the time settings were in imperial units.

Whereas the cctv camera was likely made in china and would use metric units of time.

Sorted



Otherwise it's been faked.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by bigyin]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I’m missing the point here, This camera takes ONE PHOTO EVERY SECOND. So if you look at the photo’s, the first two pictures have the exact same time. So the camera took a picture before the second changed to 20. It just looks like the 2nd picture should be 20, then look again. You have 19-23. So what’s the big deal? The explosion could have caused the electronic time clock to momentarily not change. You chasing shadows with this camera.

Only one thing could have happened here. They set off a bomb inside the building to create the damage to Mirror a plane crashing in. they most likely had the plane parts we see in other Photo’s in that part of the building. There’s no time to place them after the event.-Too many people around.

It could not have been a rocket (well I don’t think so) because there are two things, one the timing to shoot the rocket and hit the building the exact same time the plane flies past the Impact point. So they could not shoot it from far. It would have to be done close by. 2nd the path the rocket would have to go over was, over the top of a 4-6 lane highway. Someone would have seen it flash past. Or the trail of smoke.

A rocket normally takes a good few 100 yards before there is no smoke, maybe even a few miles. So shooting from close would be out. Shooting from far would be a timing issue, but not impossible. But then we left with someone seeing it. Sure it flies fast but you can see them as they big. Unlike a bullet.

The plane could not have dropped a rocket or bomb because of the Angle witness have said it flew in (which Differs from the Gov claims).

Had to be a Bomb.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

jpro
Well then I propose you build a time machine, and go back in time to pre 911 and get them to purchase a better camera.

Those of us that live in reality will continue to work with what we have.

donny
Sheeple work with and eat what they are feed by their MASTER.
Think about what you said above. 911 controversy is for sheep dogs.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
[edit on 2-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

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.


Sure. They deliberately doctored the date to fool you into thinking the frames were doctored.

Sneaky bunch those NWO operatives, aren't they?


Wow jt I am suprised you didn' include back stabbing ,evil cowards!!



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join