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

I really could not make this easier for you all to see, some absolutely astonishing aviation rule bending, and very poor editing.....

Firstly the video in super slow format (3 fps)



The frames of relevance...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6fb495e73afb.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/34377b0cb04d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/78dd0ecdf32e.jpg[/atsimg]

The questions...

1). How does a vehicle supposedly travelling at 600+ feet per second remain stationary for a mind boggling 107 frames?.

2). How does said vehicle cause an explosion when it is clearly in the same spot?.

I LOVE you man! I really do...in a non-sexual way.

This is the first I've learned of this thanks to your careful analysis of
the video.

You NEED to get this out there with your name on it. You have totally
debunked the GL's lies and excuses for claiming this 'object' was AA77!!

May I have your permission to spread this elsewhere?

[edit on 24-9-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

I LOVE you man! I really do...in a non-sexual way.

This is the first I've learned of this thanks to your careful analysis of
the video.

You NEED to get this out there with your name on it. You have totally
debunked the GL's lies and excuses for claiming this 'object' was AA77!!

May I have your permission to spread this elsewhere?

Hehe, love you too , and yes bud it is here to be used.

I wonder what the Pentagon would say about their video after seeing this?

You weren't supposed to notice that! When will you people learn to stop criticizing their attempts to misinform you?! They put a lot of time and money into fixing that footage. Sheesh. Show some respect, would you please? They are professionals, after all.

Seventh

I really think you are on to something here

Seriously, many thanks for putting so much effort into this!!

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?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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?

Well the UNited States Gov could easily settle this. They can put up or shut up. Lets see the Video.

The claims that their video's weren't up to it technically are bunk. I don't for one minute believe that they only had video camera's that were only prepared for something similar to a slow moving robbery through their front door! That is ludicrous.

Obviously they don't want to actually show what happened for a reason.

Originally posted by talisman

Well the UNited States Gov could easily settle this. They can put up or shut up. Lets see the Video.

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.

Come to think of it, that's exactly what Seventh WAS doing when he created this thread- pointing at specks in the background and saying FAKE. It's pretty clear he's of a mind to always point at specks in the background and say FAKE, as long as the photos aren't showing it was a cruise missile/UFO/whatever, even if the particular speck he's pointing to is in the background on the cruise missile/UFO/whatever photo as well.

Obviously they don't want to actually show what happened for a reason.

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.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.

Wasn't that Clinton? No, it wouldn't have been him...

No Dave. It isn't a cigar but it isn't a plane either. If you want to see a plane do that in your little world, if you really want to believe in your government's innocence that badly, you just go ahead, dear. We understand.

I guess a little coffee wouldn't help you wake up? No? I thought not. But sometimes, you get coffee even when you don't want it. Sometimes the pot is full and you just can't do anything about it. This is one of those occasions. There are a lot of people awake now, Dave. Your little world is going to fall apart, like it or not. Hold on for the ride. I hope your "plane" has wings at least and some decent momentum to keep up with what's coming up next. This is gonna be fun.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave just a quick reply here, the video in question and the object it depicts is supposed to be a 757 on the approach...yes? if no then it is case closed, if yes, then answer the questions I put here, that is the whole point of this thread that object stayed stationary for a real time equivalent of over 3 seconds (30 fps 107 frames), forget cigar shaped stuff, and your perception of *twoofers* and answer my questions, this should be easy for you guys, How did a vehicle travelling at over 600 feet per seconds manage to remain stationary for 3.5 seconds?, and in this time the explosion also appeared.

Like I say bud, this is a questions asked thread, we are tin foil hat wearers, so yet another moon beam thread appears questioning the OS, so where is the rock solid OS explanation of how this phenomena occurred?.

You can answer these questions logically Dave, can`t you, there must be obvious reasons this happened, as a 757 really did hit the Pentagon didn`t it Dave?.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
I guess a little coffee wouldn't help you wake up? No? I thought not. But sometimes, you get coffee even when you don't want it. Sometimes the pot is full and you just can't do anything about it. This is one of those occasions. There are a lot of people awake now, Dave. Your little world is going to fall apart, like it or not. Hold on for the ride. I hope your "plane" has wings at least and some decent momentum to keep up with what's coming up next. This is gonna be fun.

Yeah, right. I've already encountered hordes of people exactly like you, who were "so sure" soemthing was going to happen." People were "so sure" we were going to get into a war with China over the spy plane affair, peopel were "so sure" the world was going to implode when all the clocks changed over to 1/1/2000, people were "so sure" they were going to find evidence Bush was behind the Enron scandal, they were "so sure" Bush was going to declare a dictatorship, and not a few months ago, they were "so sure" we were going to instigate a war with Iran. Even now, people are "so sure" the world is going to end in 2012 becuase the Mayan calendar says it's going to end.

How long is this Chicken Little bit of yours going to continue, anyway? It's getting stale.

Originally posted by Seventh
How did a vehicle travelling at over 600 feet per seconds manage to remain stationary for 3.5 seconds?, and in this time the explosion also appeared.

I'd have thought the answer would be self evident- becuase the video you're using is so blurry and out of focus, the object you're pointing to in the video is either a stationary object in the background behind the aircraft in one frame and revealed in the next frame, OR, that really wasn't the aircraft you were pointing at to begin with. I'm sure there are more legitimate possibilities I haven't thought of, but I'll wager they're all based upon the impracticality of interpreting a video that's so blurry and out of focus, in one way or another.

So what say you explain to me, why on EARTH woudl they waste their time crashing some weird thing into the Pentagon and plant all sorts of fake wreckage all over the place and hire hordes of disinformation agents to get us to believe it was a jet liner, and not just send a real jet liner into the Pentagon like they did the WTC towers (under remote control or otherwise)? It seems to me that you're a kissing cousin to the "no planers" conspiracy people becuase you're pointing at blurry images and yelling FAKE just like they are. The only difference is that they're bucking against a lot more images.

Just for the record, what you're pointing to as "Object" is not the plane, but white smoke behind the plane. I've zoomed and overlayed a 757 where the plane is in the image:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee502298fae8.gif[/atsimg]



The plane is there in both videos released from the DoD. Now the ultimate question is, is the plane real, or is it some other type besides a 757, but painted to look like AA. Either way, there is a plane in both DoD videos, real or not.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I'd have thought the answer would be self evident- becuase the video you're using is so blurry and out of focus, the object you're pointing to in the video is either a stationary object in the background behind the aircraft in one frame and revealed in the next frame, OR, that really wasn't the aircraft you were pointing at to begin with. I'm sure there are more legitimate possibilities I haven't thought of, but I'll wager they're all based upon the impracticality of interpreting a video that's so blurry and out of focus, in one way or another.

A video so blurry and out of focus it was used as evidence (apparently), why did I use the NBC version?, for the simple reason you just stated, notice the circle highlight around it?, the object in question is what they tell us it is.. a 757, blurry..... yes, out of focus... hell yeah, malfunctioning to the point it would make the object stay static up to and including the point of impact thus making it inadmissible as evidence... nope.

So what say you explain to me, why on EARTH woudl they waste their time crashing some weird thing into the Pentagon and plant all sorts of fake wreckage all over the place and hire hordes of disinformation agents to get us to believe it was a jet liner, and not just send a real jet liner into the Pentagon like they did the WTC towers (under remote control or otherwise)? It seems to me that you're a kissing cousin to the "no planers" conspiracy people becuase you're pointing at blurry images and yelling FAKE just like they are. The only difference is that they're bucking against a lot more images.

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....

aviation-safety.net...

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?.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Just for the record, what you're pointing to as "Object" is not the plane, but white smoke behind the plane. I've zoomed and overlayed a 757 where the plane is in the image:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee502298fae8.gif[/atsimg]



The plane is there in both videos released from the DoD. Now the ultimate question is, is the plane real, or is it some other type besides a 757, but painted to look like AA. Either way, there is a plane in both DoD videos, real or not.

Bonez the reason I used one of the 1st release videos, well I will let you decide, watch this one you will clearly see the object I picked out is the plane and you will also notice after the explosion it has vanished.......

www.youtube.com...

EDIT: P.S.

P.S.

You will also notice that in this video there is no pixelation nor a huge stationary object frame count.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Seventh]

Not to rain on any parades here, BUT ... what you are "seeing" is merely residual "after-effects" and "latency" resulting from the camera's lens "refresh rate".

Nothing more ... lingering "after-effects", at that frame-rate.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Not to rain on any parades here, BUT ... what you are "seeing" is merely residual "after-effects" and "latency" resulting from the camera's lens "refresh rate".

Nothing more ... lingering "after-effects", at that frame-rate.

Look at the Judicial Watch video it has none of what the NBC released one has.

reply to post by Seventh


Whatever that object appears to be entering the frame is leading a
smoke trail. I would agree based on clear video analysis that the object
you have highlighted is 'supposed to be' the nose of the alleged plane.

Okay, let`s look at one of the 5 pictures released from the same video, show me where you can see this identical frame.......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83e66181fa36.jpg[/atsimg]