Absolute Proof of Missing Frames and Tampered Pentagon Footage.. object and blast on screen at the s

reply to post by matrixNIN11

I tend to agree with the feeling that FBI/CIA/NSA intelligence is low and results in embarrassing cracks in the superstructure of lies, such that we see the truth. I remember doing "Modern Studies" at high school, where the teacher was forced to see the very high intelligence of the left and the brilliance of the writing by Marx, Lenin, Engels, Trotsky, announcing as part of our learning '....the left have consistently tended to have very good writers, and the right has produced very few in comparison, and of those few nothing like the impressiveness of left writing....."
Remember debunkers of that old chestnut, the van Greunen office documents, stolen by him, suggesting a ufo was shot down via Thor II laser cannon in 1988 on the 7th of May that year, using the fact that spelling mistakes were made on the documents to justify dismissing them as serious, and tarnishing James van Greunen's image also, but I thought, these offices of high security are demanding very right wing personnel, and they just simply are known as inferior in the language capacity....the spelling mistakes are probative not anti-probative.....with the strange sounding '....f.a.o. the Illuminated Nine....' right at the end of the documentation.....here's an experience regarding this....
In 1994, I was at a meeting organising anti-criminal justice bill demonstrations, and a highly placed civil servant was one of us, a militant leftie same as me.....except he constantly took the piss out of me for my staunch belief in extra-terrestrial contact and the breadhead class, l'bourgoisie, were surprisingly aggressive re the extra-terrrestrial threat to their current expectations and exploitations.....anyway, constant piss-taking about ufos, little green men, etc., ......I took out the van Greunen documents and showed them to this guy, David Alexander, towards the end of another organisational meeting and beer drinking session, he was as boorish as usual.....showed him the sheets, said "What do you think of these?".....and his face just hit the floor within seconds and he sat staring at my photocopied examples, suddenly drained of all energy, looking and looking.....eventually he responded with the following statement.....
"What I can say, is these sheets have on them a method of communicating to me is that, whatever is in them, is of extreme seriousness. I can't tell you what that is, because it would be breaking the Official Secrets Act, but I can tell you that as a civil servant in my sensitive position, if I was handed these I would have to be taking them extrememly seriously. This does have to be very sensitive information."
"What is it about them?"
"I can't tell you that."
Criticism of that anecdote has involved asserting, 'Surely if van Greunen was in a position to know that symbolism, there's nothing to stop him using it to make his forgery more plausible', and I have made that point to this civil servant in fairness to the anti-van Greunen fraternity, it does seem logical to me to make that objection, but Mr. Alexander responded to that by saying "Nope. It is done in such a way that it's absolutely impossible for him to fake this. I'm saying again, if I was in my office and I was handed these sheets, I would have to take these documents extremely seriously."
I myself took that as impossible for the bureaucrats to achieve, and argued, this time taking the position the debunkers would probably take, and David Alexander now taking the position against me that the documents must be genuine through his specialist knowledge of top secret documentation, I was incredulous at the full reversing of our respective positions in the argument, and David wouldn't explain how the civil service and the security services could achieve this security certification, he just reiterated the documents must be genuine.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by martin_heth]

reply to post by weedwhacker


You have to be kidding. Does having the money make me a double spy for israel? I'll try not to pollute.

Are those white streams of smoke because that plane that was erased from the video is flying so low to the ground?

Yeah, look there they are.... but, no plane?

You're one of those people who need to move on.

reply to post by 517.101


Ever seen bad videos on YouTube???

CGI???

Just about ANYONE can put baloney into the internet, then claim it to be the 'real deal'.....

Bah!!!

If the pentagon was indeed hit by a airliner then the government would have no problem showing us the wreckage,since they don't seem to be inclined to do that because they would then be exposing TPTB it's clear to me that either a cruise missile hit that building or they used a wall breaching kit.

S+F

Usually when people scream evidence here it's something not as powerful as this.

the citgo gas station (by the pentagon) video *has* been released. It's garbage. the screen is split with like 6 videos on 1 screen. the pentagon itself is like 3 pixels wide in the video. useless:

www.youtube.com...

the sheridan rooftop video has also been released..and is almost as useless.

The only other video im really waiting for are the DOT traffic cams. however these are likely to be on an even larger time lapse than 1 second, and probably also didnt capture any good images.

some of you ppl need to get your facts straight.

why not focus on VERIFIABLE facts, for instance this:

the black boxes from flight 93....they were allegedly recovered "15 and 25 feet underground"....yet the govt photos of these devices are highly suspect. The first verifiable fact is that in the govt photos, 1 is made by Honeywell, the other Allied Signal. This is HUGE. Planes get matching boxes at birth. flight 93 was born in 96. In 1999 Honeywell bought Allied Signal...so the only possibilities are:

1.) At least one of the black boxes is a fake/plant.
2.) Flight 93 had ONE of its black boxes replaced sometime between 1999 and 2001, with a non-matching box.

(source: hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com... )

[edit on 18-2-2009 by The Dispatcherator]

[edit on 18-2-2009 by The Dispatcherator]

reply to post by weedwhacker


then why are you contributing so many replies fueling the debate more!! pot kettle black springs to mind

In the first youtube vid, near the end, where he shows the clip from the helicopter -- surely it's known that's completely fake? As in, not even remotely believable. I'm sure that was done up by some nerd somewhere and not an official govt vid..?

It's very easy to see how it's [the strike] fully cgi as the explosion doesn't synch to any of the frame it sits in.

Originally posted by interested-one

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by matrixNIN11

 

Did you ever stop to think.....that the frame rate of the camera just might have something to do with this supposed anomaly?

The little weenie in the video thinks he sleuthed this out on his own. He believes that the people that supposedly were responsible for the most comprehensive plot and cover-up in history forgot to fix their own video and allowed him to find it.

What a genius.

Having designed and installed video surveillance systems in the hundreds, including sensitive military installations I can tell you that the framerate being captured here is about 7.5 frames per second. I can determine this by observing the car. BTW this is BS frame rates for the Pentagon, these should be AT LEAST 20 fps considering how important this facility is to our Country! At 7.5 fps you are lucky you even saw any indication of the plane at all considering it's speed. This goofball hasn't discovered a damn thing here, only a # video surveillance system that isn't up to par with the systems we install in Wendys fast food stores.

Mate, thank you for pointing out that absolute fact. Even in the 90s, video surveillance cameras were capturing real time in important installations and not just an economy of frames to save money. It's time that people concentrated on absolute facts and left the emotions out of the debate. How can you be a flag waving, stars and stripes forever, home baked apple pie eater, and ignore the fact that the government or the courts won't release the REAL surveillance videos recorded in REAL time. Release the videos and we who have been skeptical will gladly eat crow if we are wrong whilst the patriots continue eating home baked apple pie.
Thanks again for making sense.

Great thread and love your analysis of the pentagon. Funny to see the nose of the plane sitting there in the frame while the explosion takes place!

The helicopter vid is definitely fake. The "plane" or UFO has no shadow whereas everything else does? Also the shape changes mid flight etc etc. I could go on and I would love it to be real but it is just too white and unbelievable. I watched it frame by frame and it is not even close.



[edit on 18-2-2009 by spacecowgirl]

reply to post by noonebutme


I believe you are 100% correct - for those still wishing to hang on to the belief that the footage is possibly real. You can purchase that footage from this site

video.google.com...

before the dodgy cgi plane and unconvincing explosion were added.

The Dispatcherator pointed this one out on an older ATS thread yesterday

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regards

berth

Originally posted by Andy Ashe 30UK
found a link to a load of wreckage images of the pentagon and subsequent investigation of those images, have a look n see for ya self . If the link does not work then google - www.rense.com...
for even better close up and analysis!! kinda throws back the story that no wreckage was found so who knows what to believe now??????

Perhaps you should actually look at the link you posted. The thread actually debunks this all-too-convenient and identifiable piece of wreckage, because:

• it's from the nose section of the plane. Why isn't it inside the pentagon?
  
• it's not charred, as it would be from the explosion
  
• the grass all around the Pentagon is putting-green smooth
  

I have to say that although I was a bit WTF? about Craig Ranke's overfly theory at first, it's making more and more sense to me now. Of course the hijackers couldn't fly a heavy jet that well. Of course the ground effect would have kicked in, bouncing the aircraft into the air, Of course the whole thing about crashing a massive passenger jet into a low-rise building is potentially really messy, especially if you have the perps actually inside the building. Remember the stories of Rumsfeld heading down to the "crash site" immediately? That wasn't bravery, folks.

Anyway, it's good to see people at least struggling towards making sense of all the BS and disinfo.

As for the debunkers... I have a couple of things to say. I looked at the "debunking Loose Change thing, and I read it for a while in case the guy landed a punch, but he was hitting straw men all the way till I got bored. He also referred, with thanks, to the 9/11 myths site. I really can't be bothered to post the links, you can look it up yourself... try the section where he's defending the fact that Mohammed Atta's passport showed up on the street below the Towers before they collapsed.

He spends a long time on the straw man - could Atta's passport have survived the crash? - and cites lots of gee-whiz incidents where such unlikely things have happened. He then, hilariously, shoots himself in the foot by actually quoting the 9/11 Commission report, which simply says that a man in a suit (no name taken, disappears afterwards, never came forward again) just hands the passport to a policemen.

So... no actual chain of evidence linking the passport to the crash, then. Wouldn't last thirty seconds in a court of law.

And it's nice to see US tax dollars at work on this thread, debunking, debunking, debunking. By their works (and styles) shall ye know them.

I have not read this entire thread, and don't know if this was mentioned, but it was convenient that the section of building hit was empty.
And where were all the construction workers that day, were they given day off?

reply to post by matrixNIN11


Yeah man, good Vid, i've been trying to tell everyone for SO LOng now that 9/11 was a inside job. but people just look at you weird, lol.
my girlfriend always got mad at me, but C'mon! JET FUEL BLOWING DOWN THE TWINS, GIVE ME BREAK GUYS! LOL

Originally posted by googolplex
I have not read this entire thread, and don't know if this was mentioned, but it was convenient that the section of building hit was empty.
And where were all the construction workers that day, were they given day off?

Well not exactly there were people in there. In fact there is a lady trying to sue right now over the whole ordeal her name escapes me. But she just adds more questions than answers when you see her video and read about it.

She claims there were people working at the time and apparently was interviewed by cnn or msnbc right after she got out of the hole the "plane" made.


Anyone remember the name?

reply to post by weedwhacker


i dont recall saying anything about it being impossible to fly planes into buildings did i? so your comments about the flight simulator have nothing what so ever to do with my post. what i said what that jet fuel alone could not have caused the towers to come down. not to mention the tower hit last fell first. if the fuel were the cause then by logical deduction the first fire would have melted the steel first. but obviously thats the point of this, logic.

anyway i dont want to beat a dead horse so carry on with business as usual. im sure one day all this will be sorted out one way or another.

First of all, do you really think that NBC, the libral media, would cover up ANYTHING for an republican, especially GW???? NOPE! The first video is bull because the guy himself on the video could have set that up just to get some face time. Shoot, for all we know NBC or whatever chanel it was could have done that to make people think there was a conspiracy.

Second video, with the video's not showing the same thing, video camera's don't show the same thing. They are different angles and they show every other frame sometimes every 3rd or 4th frame, so obviously they will not line up the same way.

Third and forth video, all those people are going off of what they are only seeing in the video. Just becuase the engine parts were not shown there, it doesn't mean traces of them still were not found. Maybe there was a dead body by one of the engines so they couldn't show it? Who knows, it could have been a billion things.

People have nothing better to do then to think the world is against everybody else and dream up things and they make them seem real. Anything can be twisted!

If people reall think that this was a big conspiracy then what the hell are they still doing living in a country that would do something like that. People are in general (this is fact) are stupid. This proves that!

One more thing I forgot to mention, when they say in the video it is impossible for a plane to be that low and hit the building. That is complete *SNIP* becuase planes land ALL THE TIME and they are that low because THEY ARE ROLLING ON THE GROUND.


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by Hal9000]

reply to post by Darthorious
I said empty but point I was trying to make is that this area was under going reconstruction , repairs, and was not in full use at time.
This is in comparison to rest of building where, if hit a lot more people wound have been killed.
In military it is common to realize losses, the less the better and the less of the higher ups the lot better.

I hate to burst everyones bubble as I do believe in alot of the information about the 911 conspiracies. I live in Fairfax and I was one of the select few on the highway that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon. I was heading to work and I was only maybe a mile away. Whether there was more to it than that may be but a plane did hit. Believe me or not but I was there and on that stretch of highway heading to work every day at that time for 12 years. I tried like hell to get my cell camera out but it was hitting as I came within view. I was one of the first people on the scene and I was forced to go out to the gas station across the street as soon as I got out of the car.