The offical Pentagon video is fake, i have proove

Sorry if this has been posted before, if it has then the mods have my permission to remove this thread.

I visited this website (look at the pictures)


Notice in the picture on the bottom corner has a date? it clearly says Sep. 12. 2001 and the time might be wrong aswell didnt the attack take place in the morning? the time in the picture says 17:37:19. This prooves to me that the government covered this whole thing up and i understand why many people think it is a cover-up. The attack on the pentagon was on 11th,september,2001 not the 12th september so why does it say 12th september? weird huh.

Have you thought about....,maybe that time stamp ,is from when the copy was made. I mean, if the gov. has got this huge cover-up going on! Would they give this to the public without altering it? Then again the cam could have just been off on the date and time? Not sure about this as proof of anything!

Stand up, walk over to where you keep your digital camera, look at the date & time settings, and tell me: Are those set to the current time and date?

One way or the other, even proper recording equipment can get out of whack, either by errors in the device itself or something the programmer has done. Perhaps the guy that set it a year ago set it from his watch? I know my watch goes out of whack every time there are less that 31 days in a month. It's not like some CCTV system is set from constant updates from the GMT server.

But of course, most people would want to keep those things accurate for the same reason a professional photographer would: to keep tabs on when shots were taken. And youd expect that the Pentagon would have half-competent guards and IT techs at least, and those people probably would notice that the time is out of sync and would most likely set it right for security purposes.

If it can be proven that that time is correct, than you've just made a very interesting find, markbeastman.

edit: Proof is spelt P-R-O-O-F, not proove

[edit on 1/8/2006 by watch_the_rocks]

Ohh... someone dropped the ball! lol.......

Just a matter of time until Bush is impeached for WAR CRIMES!
Thanks for the info.

And yes my settings are always correct!
And to say that the pentagon is that inept.... well either way there was a crime committed by the pentagon!...ohh wait no; Bush is the commander and chief, he is directly responsible.

www.impeachbush.org

It is your duty as an American! Stand up for you self!

OK, so i've seen this footage a few times, and I've got to say.....why is it proof that its fake?

I've never understood how this constitutes as fake.

Yes, its totally stupid to have the incorrect date and time on the video, but there is a very logical explanantion - Human Error.

Do you not think that the date etched onto the brain of EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WESTERN WORLD would have been wrong without anyone noticing it.

Also, if it WAS faked then why would they put a fake time and date in the first place.

No, what you have here is human error. Incompentance. Lack of Training(maybe). BUT no Conspiracy.

Sorry if this has been posted before, if it has then the mods have my permission to remove this thread.

Ohh and I love this line. Makes me laugh, as though the MODS NEED yourpermission to move/delete this thread. Its comical

[edit on 3/8/2006 by JebusSaves]

Originally posted by JebusSaves
OK, so i've seen this footage a few times, and I've got to say.....why is it proof that its fake?

I've never understood how this constitutes as fake.

Yes, its totally stupid to have the incorrect date and time on the video, but there is a very logical explanantion - Human Error.

Do you not think that the date etched onto the brain of EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WESTERN WORLD would have been wrong without anyone noticing it.

Also, if it WAS faked then why would they put a fake time and date in the first place.

No, what you have here is human error. Incompentance. Lack of Training(maybe). BUT no Conspiracy.

Sorry if this has been posted before, if it has then the mods have my permission to remove this thread.

Ohh and I love this line. Makes me laugh, as though the MODS NEED yourpermission to move/delete this thread. Its comical

[edit on 3/8/2006 by JebusSaves]

lol..... OK...
Ohh yea and the earth is only 3 days old.
For real? Are you from Texas?

Originally posted by Iggnorace_is_bliss

lol..... OK...

Ohh yea and the earth is only 3 days old.

For real? Are you from Texas?

Lack of a relevent comeback shows you lack the ability to genuinely discuss a topic.

Lack of a relevant comeback? What are you talking about? I simply don't feel that is necessary to waste my time justifying factual evidence that your puny little brain has a hard time understanding. Furthermore, this is a discussion forum and I don't need to come back with some snappy remark. Unlike you I actually do my research, so when I read a comment as ignorantly posted as yours was, the only thing I can do is laugh.

Here allow me to explain just so you understand.
First of all to say that the timestamp on a military installations security camera was accidentally overlooked, is so far beyond retarded its not even worth mentioning.

Secondly, I have a eye balls as well as most of the people on the planet. I didn't see an actual plane hit the building. What I saw was a blurry image which might have constituted a plane, maybe, if you use your imagination.

And finally, the hole in the side of the building wasn't big enough for a commercial airliner to fit into. As the commercial airliner obviously must have completely went inside the Pentagon because there was no debris on the lawn in front of the whole. Where are the holes for the wings? Let me guess…. they were vaporized by the heat…lol

It's also kind of funny that the impact hole that the commercial airliner supposedly made is just about the same size as an impact hole from the Global Hawk UAV.

Oh wait there's more. I have pictures of the wreckage found around the Pentagon. In these pictures, there is no evidence of a commercial airliner, in fact aeronautical engineers have looked over the photos of the wreckage at the Pentagon and determined that the size of the engines found outside the building were specifically built for the Global Hawk UAV system.

Oh let's keep going. By the way did anyone remember the eyewitness that saw the global Hawk missile hit the Pentagon? No….. Well look that up to!

I have personally owned a computer since 1988. During the past 17 years of owning electronic equipment, never once have I not had the proper time and date set. To say that one of the most highly secured facilities in America with some of the top technologists and security analysts hired from around the world, would make such a stupid mistake... lol

If you actually think for even a fraction of the second that the government isn't absolutely and completely responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center's and the Pentagon. You need to recheck your values, go back to school and do some research. Because it's people like you that are creating the prison planet.

Hope you're happy Jebus……


[edit on 4-8-2006 by Iggnorace_is_bliss]

Wrong answer. The Global Hawk isn't much smaller than a 757 as far as wingspan. Where were the wing holes from IT? Or is this another exercise where the standard of evidence is higher for one than the other?

[edit on 8/4/2006 by Zaphod58]

Actually the specifications of the Global Hawk are

Length: 44.4 feet
Wingspan: 116.2 feet
Height: 15.2 feet

and the specifications for the 757 are

Length: 178.7 feet
Wingspan: 124.10 feet
Height: 44.6 feet

So you are trying to say that both of these aircraft are generally relative in proportion. I would say learn to read numbers and get back to the rest of us on planet Earth.


If anyone else would like to post some BS information I would be happy to debunk it for them.

I said IN WINGSPAN in my post. 116 feet is pretty darn close to 124 feet. So where are the wing holes? Why does one have such a high standard of proof when the other doesn't?

In my opinion, there is no proof here of anything.

Common human error, is the most likely scenario.

Time to move on, not much to discuss here. Anything else here would be off topic, and is covered in countless other threads.

[edit on 8/4/2006 by Mechanic 32]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I said IN WINGSPAN in my post. 116 feet is pretty darn close to 124 feet. So where are the wing holes? Why does one have such a high standard of proof when the other doesn't?

Sounds like you are saying it wasn't a plane either?

But I am unclear on what you are asking?

The Global Hawk UAV goes together in pieces. The wings attach before flight, so they can transport it. This might explain why there were no wing holes. Also the wings in the Global Hawk don't weight that much. The total weight of the craft is 22,000lbs and a 757 is 272,500lbs. A 20,000lb craft wouldn't need metal wings, they use composites. So it would be conceivable that the wings where made of fiberglass or something like that. I think it would be reasonable to assume they disintegrated on impact.

If a 757 is 275,000 pounds, how is the max takeoff weight 255,000 pounds? Somewhere around 80-85% of the weight of a 757 is in the fuselage. The wings of a 757 are JUST AS FRAGILE as those on a Global Hawk. Just because they carry engines on them doesn't mean that they're going to survive a crash any better than a Global Hawk wing would. STRUCTURALLY they're strong enough to carry fuel and engines, but that doesn't mean they're going to punch through a concrete wall. And before you can say "World Trade Center" the two are COMPLETELY different. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

And for the record, the empty weight of a 757-200 (the type that flight 77 was), with RB211 engines is 126,050 pounds. The max gross take off weight is between 220,000 and 255,000 pounds depending on engines and other differences.

[edit on 8/4/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Iggnorace_is_bliss
Lack of a relevant comeback? What are you talking about? I simply don't feel that is necessary to waste my time justifying factual evidence that your puny little brain has a hard time understanding. Furthermore, this is a discussion forum and I don't need to come back with some snappy remark. Unlike you I actually do my research, so when I read a comment as ignorantly posted as yours was, the only thing I can do is laugh.

You really could not have chosen a better name for yourself.
First of all, i didn't say you should post a 'snappy remark' i said you didn't have a relevent comeback pertaining to the topic.
SO, with that in mind, you didn't add to the discussion, on the contrary, you tried to actually come back with a 'snappy remark'.


Also, if you truly do research then maybe you should start by reading peoples comments. At no point did i say that there is no conspiracy surrounding 9/11.
What i did say was, this video does not constitute proof.

Lets look at some verifiable facts.
The Pentagon was hit by something on 9/11.
That Video shows some kind of attack ON the pentagon.
The Time Stamp is just over a day later then the attack.
There has been no more attacks on the Pentagon since 9/11 of this nature.

I do not say that the video shows any particular vehicle crashing into it.

What i do say, is that the video with the facts we actually have, shows an attack on the pentagon in September of 2001.

So, with all that in mind, this video does not proove anything is fake with these facts, only that there is a Time and Date stamp that appears inaccurate but only by mere hours(33 approx).
Which, granted is odd as if this was a real 'fake' it would surely have been doctored to the correct time as there is no video footage of 33 hours after the first attack when something else hits the Pentagon.
So logically(which is something you show little of) the best explanation for this is Human Error.

You should really look into your 'facts' before you try and unsuccessfully bring down another persons comments.

You also need to start acting a little more adult if you wish to be taken seriously.

You guys have GOT to be kidding me. That date stamp was not from the original video but was added by some web site or outside source that obviously dubbed the video at that time and date.

I suppose the camera also burned in the description on each frame of what it was capturing too? (plane, impact #1, etc etc).

[edit on 6-8-2006 by snoopy]

As snoopy just said, that Sept. 12th stamp is photoshopped in, and by just watching the sequence quickly you'll see both stamps are MOVING - ie itz is not only photoshopped in, but it is done very crudely.
So yes, the Sep 12 tag is fake, as well as the time. AFAIK THESE frames (with the tags) appeared first on some conspiracy site - go figure who added the tags?

Yup... Photoshop.