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 Video made easy.........

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





What would THAT prove? If you truthers are so madly in love with the idea that this is all a coverup to the point where you even think the wreckage was planted and the witnesses are disinformation agents, you're certainly not going to believe any video. If the "moon lading was faked" conspiracy people can point to some speck in the background and say FAKE, the 9/11 conspiracy people can likewise point to some speck in the background and say FAKE.



Crying "fake" has not stopped the Gov in the past. The point is irrelevant anyway. It is their duty to serve the people and come up with the goods.

If people cry "fake so be it. Whatever, the case the people behind the scences can finnally come out and stop hiding under "In the Interest of National Security" because that blanket allows them to do as they please and get away with it.



No, actually, it's obvious that no usable video is available or else they *would* have invented some video on some sound state somewhere, especially if they really did plant fake wreckage and hire hordes of disinformation agents.

Why does every tiny little nut and bolt just HAVE to have some sinister secret meaning to it? Even Freud said that sometime a cigar is just a cigar.


The point here is that the Gov has no real good reason to hide something like this.

BTW, did they match the Serial Numbers back to flight 77? Or was that another given as well?




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Seventh, gotta love ya too here, cause you are digging up stuff, and the movement needs more diggers. But bro, this was discovered some time ago by a youtuber. In other words, that the explosion and the tip of the plane remain in the same frame. But unfortunately it was the product of post video editing.

One thing to first understand is the actual frame rate of the security cams, which was 1 frame per second. And the next thing is to understand what happens when a video editing program creates slow motion. Many create additional frames along the timeline from the original frames. On closer inspection, and when sourcing the original videos obtained by Judicial Watch, which you can see here:

www.judicialwatch.org...

www.judicialwatch.org...

It becomes apparent that the frames in question where the nose of the plane and the explosion were there at the same time were artificially created in some video editing program somewhere, and then uploaded to youtube. Because nowhere in the original footage does this occur.

Visit this link at 911research for an extraction of the actual frames, and you will see what I am talking about:

911research.wtc7.net...

But that still doesn't explain the one of the biggest mysteries to date, which is why the footage was mistakenly labeled Sept 12.2001! Many people allege that frames were removed, but I disagree with that because of the slow frame rate of the security cams. That explains why you only see the nose in the one frame, and then you see in the next frame the explosion well into its development, rather than the onset of the explosion.

[edit on Thu Sep 24th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
you will clearly see the object I picked out is the plane

The white smoke that you have labeled "object" in the OP is NOT the plane. The plane is in front (to the left) of the smoke. Again, I superimposed a clear plane over the blurry plane in my animated image. If you can't see the plane, then I don't know what to tell you. I can't make you see it, but it's there.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
[edit on 25-9-2009 by Nassim Haramein]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


What I don't understand is why this 'smoke' is more visible than a more
dense and much larger object?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Yeah, actually I had forgotten about that. I believe you are correct. What appeared to be the nose of the plane is actually the smoke trail, and the way you can tell is that the background does change, in the original footage, ever so slightly, just to left of the smoke trail. But the "plane" is very blurry, due to the slow shutter speed of the security cam.

I do know that the security cams were "staggered" in time, so that whatever one didn't capture the other one would. Sort of. But still not enough to clearly make out the plane, much less conclusively identify it as AA77.

When it's all said and done, my personal belief is that something else did actually hit the pentagon- but it wasn't 77. The white smoke trail is more consistent with a missile of some kind. And the level approach as seen in these videos do not coincide at all with the research Craig Ranke and CIT did, and what the witnesses saw. I think 77 flew over, if it was 77 at all, and some other projectile or "special plane" actually hit.

In my mind, this makes more sense explaining the exit hole in C ring than a planted "wall breach kit" explosion. I believe it was a "deep penetrator" missile of some kind.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Okay, let`s look at exactly the same film but this time the Judicial Watch one, see if the flaws have been ironed out......


(click to open player in new window)







And Bonez if that is smoke where is the smoke trail leading up to and after the impact?.

And to the many whom state it remains static because of increased frame rate per second, how do we explain it moving into view in one frame in exactly the same fps format, and travelling the last bit of distance to impact in one frame?.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Good grief, the plane hit in the middle of rush hour traffic and hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw it was a jet liner...and yet these conspiracy people just have to continue relying on blurry images in the hopes it was a cruise missile, UFO, or whatever it is they think actually hit the Pentagon. It's as if you WANT it all to be some secret conspiracy.

Did it ever occur to you that it's a documented fact that the conspirators (whoever you think they are) actaully had one or more disposable jet liners under their control? They wouldn't need to crash some weird thing into the Pentagon and then plant all sorts of fake aircraft wreckage all over the place and hire armies of disinformation agents to get people to believe it was a jet liner. All they'd need to do is send a real jet liner into the Pentagon and all those things would be created for real.

Just claim it was a real jet liner but it was under remote control, or something. That way, you can still keep your conspiracy stories and not have to add all this extra complexity of layers upon layers of elaborate conspiracies within conspiracies on top of conspiracies. Why are you striving to make it as convoluted as possible?


I know. I'd rather see the video from one of the other cameras on the Pentagon, or the one from the gas station, or the one from the parking lot, or even one of those feeds that Shrub got to see of the first WTC crash...
Unfortunately, this is all we have to work with. It's obviously been tampered with, and it's obviously NOT THE ONLY FOOTAGE but it's all we're allowed to see.
Sorry, back to my deluded corner for me to feed at the teat of Fox news.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Futher to that point: the camera is going to receive images at the speed of
light, regardless of frame rate.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Get two instances of your browser running and line up both of the films I posted at the exact point of the object appearing and press play, the NBC one is still static long after the JW has impacted and settled down.

Same film they say
.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Seventh
 


Futher to that point: the camera is going to receive images at the speed of
light, regardless of frame rate.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by turbofan]


The film shown by NBC is nothing like the JW one the whole perspectives are completely different to each other, in the JW film the road is visible, which is not the case of the NBC film, plus the view is much clearer in the JW one and 2.5 seconds has been clipped from the static object frame count, seems like NBC got hold of a copy marked `Destroy` by mistake
.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Seventh, why compare the two video sources at all for inconsistencies? Every time those videos are converted you are risking artifacts and frame count anomalies. Go back to the source, the original source, and get the highest quality you can. In the meantime, you might take a look at an interesting analysis done here:

website.lineone.net...

Which concludes:


So clearly, based on the assumption that it's flying straight, we cannot conclude that this is a match against what we are seeing.

Now if we assume that it is a B757 or of equal length, then the plane, I estimate, has to have spun round about 30 degrees towards the camera at the moment in time that this frame was taken. Otherwise, if the plane is still flying straight along the line of trajectory, then it has to be about 20% shorter than a B757.


And what planes, or missiles, or whatever, would be 20% shorter than a B757?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I do hear ya bud, it is always worth a look at examining the same event but through a different film, point of view, or the same film but a different date of release etc, also looked at the link and there is a part of his work calculating the 757 which was very similar to something I done....



/cheers
.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I also forgot to mention and give a link to - The video I used was downloaded from the MSNBC`s main site so it is a lot more reliable and less prone to artifacts/editing etc, than any d/l from youtube or similar.

Source.....

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
I do hear ya bud, it is always worth a look at examining the same event but through a different film, point of view, or the same film but a different date of release etc,


For the purposes of showing who is trying to subvert the movement with disinfo (aside from the obvious government coverup) I would agree. But for real research as it pertains to these pentagon security videos, all we have really is the original source. And just you know, for these videos the first person to get their hands on them was not Judicial Watch, but Scott Hodes, the attorney for Scott Bingham in their case against the DOJ, et al.



He then forwarded them to Bingham, who had a website up for a while called filght77.info. It has since been taken over by someone else, in order to keep the videos online. But they are youtube videos, so again, I would not trust them at all.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Agree there bud, the two films should be exactly the same, we have JW`s version and NBC`s both on the day of release iirc, also the smoke is very apparent on the film from the second camera.

/cheers.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Dave it is so blatantly obvious why they did not fly a 757 into the Pentagon exactly how it was done, 5 feet above the ground and clipping lamp posts that in real life would break the wings....


No it wouldn't. Modern lamp posts are specifically designed to break away when somethign hits them. It's so that out of control drivers won't wrap their vehicles around lamp posts and have their surviving relatives sue the bejesus out of the gov't. This isn't exactly classified material, guy.

It would dent the wing, certainly, but it wouldn't break it.



Now, wether you like or dislike it, we have here a video clearly showing an object remaining for 3.5 seconds, if ithe CCTV had frozen or bugged out why is it recording the explosion bit?.


Now, whether you like it or not, you have not proven the object in the blurry, out of focus video is actually the plane. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter what it is you're pointing at ebcuase it can't be used in your analysis.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
I know. I'd rather see the video from one of the other cameras on the Pentagon, or the one from the gas station, or the one from the parking lot, or even one of those feeds that Shrub got to see of the first WTC crash...
Unfortunately, this is all we have to work with. It's obviously been tampered with, and it's obviously NOT THE ONLY FOOTAGE but it's all we're allowed to see.


How do you know it isn't the only usable footage? Because these conspiracy web sites keep telling you there's secret footage out there? the section of the Pentagon that was hit was a blank wall. They're not going to aim their cameras at a blank wall, they're going to aim their cameras at the places where people congregate I.E. parking lots and entrances.

It seems to be that these conspiracy people are guilty of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" persecution. They claim there must be a conspiracy becuase all the evidence is fake, and then they turn around and say there must be a conspiracy because they're not giving us enough evidence to look at...so in short, they're going to insist there must be a conspiracy regardless of what evidence is or is not shown to them. If the gov't did release crystal clear footage showing AA77 in all it's detail I absolutely positively guarantee they still wouldn't believe it. I know that because there's 500 videos showing the second aircraft hitting the WTC and there are people who still insist it was a hologram, a mocked up air force bomber, or whatever.

My question still stands- why are they intentionally padding their conspiracies to unrealistally absurd levels of complexity? If they don't want to go with remote controlled planes, fine, then say they were flown by expert pilots from impoverished third world countries with starving families, and the gov't promised to make their families millionaires if they participated in a kamikaze attack. Even THAT would make more sense than all these convoluted "cruise missiles" and "fake wreckage" stories they're spreading.



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

Originally posted by talisman

BTW, did they match the Serial Numbers back to flight 77? Or was that another given as well?


They didn't need to. The black box was recovered from the Pentagon crash site and it definitely came from AA77. That's also how they know how the pilots navigated the planes to their targets- they just fed the airport closest to the intended target into the autopilot and turned it on. In AA77's case, they fed Ronald Reagan in.

Of course, if people are in a mind to disbelieve everything that disproves their conspiracies then I doubt this would sway them, either.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by GoodOlDave



No it wouldn't. Modern lamp posts are specifically designed to break away when somethign hits them. It's so that out of control drivers won't wrap their vehicles around lamp posts and have their surviving relatives sue the bejesus out of the gov't. This isn't exactly classified material, guy.




It would dent the wing, certainly, but it wouldn't break it.


Wrong, I spend hours trying to find similar incidences to cross reference, I wish you guys would actually look at them.



aviation-safety.net...



Now, whether you like it or not, you have not proven the object in the blurry, out of focus video is actually the plane. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter what it is you're pointing at ebcuase it can't be used in your analysis.


Dear oh dear Dave, why was that video kept classified for so long?, are you saying that your precious government would frame someone by using a video that shows something that is not?, really love you guys lol, here we have a forum based on `Where is your proof`, so I use a video that was classified for admissible evidence on the basis that it shows a plane hitting the Pentagon, after said object is thoroughly proven to be nowhere near what it is supposed to be, it becomes a blurry object.

One point this really does hit home is - Your governments evidence is far from solid, is it not?.

And of course another aspect here is why are Judical Watch`s and NBC`s videos a lot different to each other, both by all accounts are supposed to be exactly the same???.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join