Mark Bingham's Obituary was ready 13 days before 9/11

reply to post by mnmcandiez


Is it my fault you fail at reading comprehension?

and it is very difficult to do quickly and easily.

A 2 second google search, and some kiddie on the interweb swears he's turned into something useful.

Your turn: HOFWFM

Originally posted by daynight42
So how to remove the data from all those pictures? You'd think there would be a simple tool to strip it from the files, right? No. There isn't. I have looked for one months ago. (I'm pretty experienced with computers, by the way.) I believe I found one that worked on a mac, but that was it. Can't remember.

I can do exactly that. And then some. But it isn't easy for the layman, no. Send me a ZIP with 400 images, organized in any directory structure, I'll remove metadata either partially or completely based on your criteria, and I'll provide you with source code to show you how it was done.

Please also re-read the thread.. the bulk of the issues you raised were addressed in my posts. Cheers.

Originally posted by litterbaux
That has to be fake, nobody willingly takes first row and not take a window seat.

I'm just being funny, carry on.

Hey... Jarrah did eventually get that window seat...

Thanks for injecting some humor into the debate, though.

reply to post by snowcrash911


I don't know who did it. All I know is that more and more examples crop up all the time. Like a poster today who linked a video to try and show that there was not a second airliner at the WTC, and they did such a horrible job that you could see a "defect" where they had tried to remove the jet.

reply to post by vipertech0596


I think you're trying to say that errors are deliberately planted in 9/11 research materials, poison pills, so to speak?

Could very well be. Who knows.

reply to post by snowcrash911


Yes, it is obviously forged.. I did it in 5 min and nobody paid me to make it perfect LOL

It was just a fun joke eh

reply to post by snowcrash911


Not so much poison pills, but crap designed for charlatans to use to convince people there was some sort of massive Government conspiracy that day. Its disgusting. Same fools try to deny the victims even existed....

Originally posted by Glargod

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Glargod
This date is what interests me.

This is what you call "cherry picking". The time stamp indicates a date problem on the computer the photograph was edited with, to add the vertical Associated Press watermark. IT is my metier. What's yours?

BTW, on a related note: here's Ziad Jarrah's boarding pass:

Fake, is it?

edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

I don't know if it is fake, but I could swear you were also on that plane...seeing here is YOUR boarding pass:

IT is MY metier. TYVM

That's pretty good and hilarious.

Interesting coincidence, this was posted on a forum snowcrash911 posts on... It's pretty convincing stuff...

THE TWO ZIAD JARRAHS
s3.amazonaws.com...

reply to post by daynight42


Did you not read my post? There are programs that remove all exif data fast and in bulk. Takes around 3 clicks and a few minutes......

reply to post by Glargod


You should watch the final episode of "The Boondocks", it's called: "It's going down". The Boondocks is an adult, animated show.

It's exactly the cartoon version of 9/11, including a guy who is alive, but who's death is being prepared, with t-shirts, fliers, books etc.

Here's a direct link to the full episode(only 20 minutes - strong language and violence in the cartoon):

It's going down!

See above the EXIF data for the Bingham photo off CNN.

So why would that photo, taken off an archive page for CNN have that data embedded on 30th August 2001?

Seems interesting that whenever a story comes out, that points towards there being no plane or planes, their theory/story/POV is quickly lambasted and shot down. Why is that? Is this not a 'conspiracy' website?

Gibonz

Mark Binghams Exif/IPTC data shows as 8/30/200

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is Exif/IPTC Data? What does it tell us?

Originally posted by Cassius666

Mark Binghams Exif/IPTC data shows as 8/30/200

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is Exif/IPTC Data? What does it tell us?

It is metadata stored and embedded within an image file. If you look at my post 2 posts above it shows the metadata contained within said image. It was last edited on Aug-30 2001.

The data is similar to an ID3 tag contained within an MP3

reply to post by Gibonz


Thanks for your reply. I suspected it was data related to the picture of sorts, but what exactly does it say? If the date would, lets say, indicate when the picture was taken then it isnt odd at all it was taken before 911. So what does the date tell us ? When the picture was taken, when it was last edited? Why is it odd that a date posted before 911 is displayed?

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Gibonz

 

Thanks for your reply. I suspected it was data related to the picture of sorts, but what exactly does it say? If the date would, lets say, indicate when the picture was taken then it isnt odd at all it was taken before 911. So what does the date tell us ? When the picture was taken, when it was last edited? Why is it odd that a date posted before 911 is displayed?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by WetBlanky
That's pretty good and hilarious.

It's pretty hilarious, but it isn't pretty good.

Interesting coincidence, this was posted on a forum snowcrash911 posts on... It's pretty convincing stuff...

THE TWO ZIAD JARRAHS
s3.amazonaws.com...

It's not a forum and I don't post there. Unless you mean TA, where you apparently post as "Veritatem". Furthermore, although Paul Thompson at least knows how to make his case through proper, documented research which exposes contradictions, he doesn't jump to conclusions like you, doesn't deliberately mislead, harass, and defame 9/11 victims and witnesses, such as taxi driver Lloyd England, whom you and your partner Craig Ranke label the "first known accomplice" to 9/11. It got so out of hand that these matters were discussed in the context of ATS moderation. Moreover, Paul Thompson doesn't wallow in epistemological, historiographical, scientific, journalistic and logical errors. Although I do disagree with Paul Thompson on this specific essay, the essay stands and its questions are valid and ought to be resolved.

Unfortunately, you couldn't hold a candle to Paul Thompson.

And now you've given yourself away:

Source 1
Source 2

You are very likely Aldo Marquis, using multiple aliases, among them "Veritatem" and "WetBlanky", which means you are deliberately concealing your identity from ATS moderator scrutiny, which means you are likely in violation of AboveTopSecret's Terms and Conditions of Use

16a.) Identity Spoofing: You will not impersonate any person or entity, forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any posting. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

Reheat knows this, I know this, and "A. Wright" knows this, and the moderators at TruthAction, where you post as "Veritatem" know this.

At minimum, cease your cross-thread targeting of me specifically. Thank you.

Thanks for the Recap. So the date shows the last time the picture has been edited according to somebody who seems to have expertise on the subject. The only way to show now the picture was created with the intent to create an Obituary before 911 is to show it has been altered with that intent before 911. The only obvious edit to the pic I can see is the AP script on the side. Is there any way the picture can be edited without affecting Exif/IPTC Data? Could AP simply have used editing software, that does not access that data, or rather than edit the picture directly simply have used an overlay over the unedited pic, to show off their logo?

Originally posted by Cassius666
Thanks for the Recap. So the date shows the last time the picture has been edited according to somebody who seems to have expertise on the subject.

It shows the last time EXIF metadata was updated, given the date & time known to the software writing the metadata. Some photo editing software (or scripts!) may not update such metadata.

Originally posted by Cassius666
The only way to show now the picture was created with the intent to create an Obituary before 911 is to show it has been altered with that intent before 911.

True. This goes to the core of the issue.

Originally posted by Cassius666
The only obvious edit to the pic I can see is the AP script on the side. Is there any way the picture can be edited without affecting Exif/IPTC Data?

Yes. Or you could save and restore the EXIF data specifically after editing, so that it would seem like no EXIF alteration had been made. All it is, is data, and it can be read and written as desired, at any time, without affecting the photo.

Could AP simply have used editing software, that does not access that data, or rather than edit the picture directly simply have used an overlay over the unedited pic, to show off their logo?

Yes. They could have. And if there was a bug in the software or a subcomponent of the software, date/time problem or deviation on the computer that did so, this error would propagate into the EXIF data. I believe the time listed, 00:00:00, indicates such.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by spunkwax

 

You'd have to be able to edit web.archive.org.

See here

The real logical explanation is that at AP, somebody's date was set wrong on their PC.

edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Okay. That could very well be.

Here's my issue: for such a life-changing event, how many suppositions/guesses are we supposed to bestow?

This was a criminal case. Every minutiae of detail needed to be scrutinized, rectified, distinguished and deemed, innocent.

But when we start to dissect the details (because we're all innocent until proven guilty) the 'probably' pile of answers started getting larger than the 'absolutely' pile answers.

How can we the public, who was effected the most by this day, conduct and conclude a crime scene with any accuracy this way? We're left to guess? Suppose? Modify the answer to fit the Official Story? Really?
Because it just seems every time we hit a speed bump (a questionable conflict) we/they dismiss it with a 'probably' answer. And that's bull*hit.

Those four (or five ) planes that morning-----and the supposed 240+ passengers/crew have caused more head scratching "WTF-problems" than answers.


The Pentagon cruise missile........er, I mean passenger plane, showed the wrong date too, 'member?



But once again, they get to inject an explanation to fit their conclusion.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Okay. That could very well be.

Here's my issue: for such a life-changing event, how many suppositions/guesses are we supposed to bestow?

This was a criminal case. Every minutiae of detail needed to be scrutinized, rectified, distinguished and deemed, innocent.

But when we start to dissect the details (because we're all innocent until proven guilty) the 'probably' pile of answers started getting larger than the 'absolutely' pile answers.

I see your point and to some degree, I share your frustration. I feel some of it may be deliberate, or rather, opportunely left ambiguous. However, many things have been resolved but not acknowledged as such.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
How can we the public, who was effected the most by this day, conduct and conclude a crime scene with any accuracy this way? We're left to guess? Suppose? Modify the answer to fit the Official Story? Really?
Because it just seems every time we hit a speed bump (a questionable conflict) we/they dismiss it with a 'probably' answer. And that's bull*hit.

Cumulative evidence indicates Mark Bingham died on UA 93 on 9/11.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
The Pentagon cruise missile........er, I mean passenger plane, showed the wrong date too, 'member?

You should really start reading the literature on the Pentagon. I'm serious. And not Meyssan. This comment, and I'm sorry, betrays extreme ignorance on the Pentagon attack.

BTW, that surveillance footage obviously proves 9/11 happened on 9/12.