Originally posted by ipsedixit
Hypothetical question for snowcrash911.
Suppose the "Time created" portion of the Exif/IPTC data for the Bingham photo had been appropriate for an office hours manipulation of the photo on August 8, 2001. Would that make it reasonable to believe that the CNN obit page for Bingham had been created prior to 9/11?
I see what you mean.
The premise of the thread is that Associated Press (letsrollforums say CNN, I believe, but the EXIF metadata is from AP) prepared this picture before 9/11, because the "legend" was already being created. Somehow, however, the perps overlooked the EXIF data exposing their mischief. That's the claim.
But, if the EXIF metadata was saved and Associated Press overlooked this, then why was the time not correctly saved also?
And, if the EXIF metadata was deliberately stripped from a proper time stamp, then why was the date stamp not stripped or corrected as well?
The premise that the EXIF metadata was a "glitch" in the legend/9/11 narrative creation scheme, makes the erroneous time stamp implausible. The time and date stamp were supposedly saved unbeknownst to AP; allowing letsrollforums to "catch AP in the act", therefore, it ought to have been faultless. Yet it's not.
See what I mean?
There's also a plausible reason why the AP photo was taken down from the CNN site: IIRC AP photos have a limited license which expires after a specific time span. CNN could therefore have installed an automatic removal script so as not violate AP's copyright.
I've looked at at least one other AP photo in the archive; it didn't have the same time/date anomaly. One could take that as further evidence supporting letsrollforums' claims, or not.
When judging whether this claim holds any water; that is, that it should truly confirm that Mark Bingham is a 'fake victim' ... then cumulative evidence should be considered.
No phone call has ever been proven fake; in fact, the case for phone call fakery is extremely weak. See this essay on 911blogger, by 911blogger team member Erik Larson. Obviously a big row erupted in the comment section, and those of us who didn't go along with David Ray Griffin's voice morphing theory were snitchjacketed and berated, and we responded, equally testy.
Who has seen Mark Bingham after 9/11? And how was his death (or staged death) prepared for if he boarded at the very last minute? He was supposed to fly on 9/10, but postponed because he woke up with a hangover. Not very professional. How about this?
One passenger was late. Mark Bingham had overslept and his friend, Matthew Hall, drove madly from Manhattan to Newark. They screeched to a halt outside Terminal A at 7:40. Bingham leapt from the car, lugging the old, blue-and-gold canvas bag he'd used as a rugby player at the University of California at Berkeley a decade earlier.
United attendants reopened the door to the boarding ramp and let him on the plane.
Bingham slipped into a seat in aisle 4-D, next to Thomas Burnett. Nine minutes after Hall dropped him off, Bingham picked up his cell phone.
"Hey, it's me," he said. "Thanks for driving so crazy to get me here. I'm in first class, drinking a glass of orange juice."
Source
Are the flight attendants and Bingham's boyfriend (he was gay) in on it? Of course, we don't learn the names of the flight attendants who boarded him because they'd probably be threatened and/or harassed by some no planer and no hijacker theorists as well as "patriotic" zealots who might blame the flight attendants for 9/11, because they boarded the hijackers as well as the passengers for UA 93.
edit on 14-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: Added missing source URL.
