Do you think the pentagon surveillance video was released by insiders trying to tell us something?

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by filosophia

 

Just to be honest with you, from that video what we really see is the nose of something white, i couldnt call it a missle anymore then i could call it a plane.. You will call it what you want to see it as though.

The nose is too small to be a 757, and it is obvious there is a frame deleted as the object appears on the right side of the screen and then immediately there is an explosion. Whatever it is is being covered up but for some reason they showed the truth for a second on the right hand side of the screen.

reply to post by alfa1


Well if you watch it you will see how the interviews show that the OS is not possible due to the fact the plane was never on the south side so it could not of hit the pentagon. Due to the damage and the "light poles" that all say the plane came from the south. Just watch it and maybe just maybe it will make you question the OS.

reply to post by filosophia


How do you know there is a frame missing? To deduce that, you would have to know the speed of the object as well as the framerate of the camera that was shooting it. I'm assuming you don't know either of these, correct? It's just as possible that something going at an airplane's speed would only show up in one frame, especially considering the fact that CCTVs don't usually capture 24 frames/second. And its impossible to deduce what it is as it is nothing more than a smudge of white. Motion blur? Definitely, no clarity.

reply to post by filosophia


You are aware that the camera in question was a SLOW SCAN - it was designed to record only like 1 frame a
second unlike normal camera speeds of 24-30 frames/second

At such a slow frame rate any motion will tend to be jerky and blurred especially for something as fast as
a jet airliner approaching at 500 mph

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
reply to post by filosophia

 

The "white streak" is obviously the nose of the plane, not smoke emanating from a "blue object." Regardless, the pixels that represent whatever the smoke would be coming from remain sedentary throughout the video. Obviously if it were a missile, as you suggest, the "blue object" wouldn't be in the same place a frame before the "smoke" appears, as the smoke appears, and then in the next frame. Think about it.

Good interpretation. The white streak is the nose of the plane. In the last frames of it, you can make out the outline of the cabin and windows. Definitely, there are powers that be that have their own angles to falsely play to cover the real truth. And that is that they simply allowed it to happen. That explanation gets trod over by the extreme explanations and is typical elements of dis- and misinformation campaigns.

Originally posted by SentientBeing13
There are witnesses that say they saw the plane hit the pentagon and I don't think that they are lying. But a lot of people will never accept witness testimony about what they saw. I think the only thing that can resolve this situation is a clear video from the pentagon security cameras that show a plane crashing into the pentagon.

Not really. There will still be people who wouldn't accept any Pentagon video footage even if it were released. Photographs and eyewitness accounts of the Germans slaughtering civilians are common as water and yet there are people who'll still insist the holocaust is fake. We have warehouses of footage and photographs of the space program and yet there are people who'll still insist the moon landings were faked. Two planes hit two towers in downtown Manhattan where 100,000 saw it and yet there are people who'll still insist the planes were holograms. When these conspiracy people zealously want to believe in their conspiracies so strongly, there isn't a single thing on the face of the planet that will convince them rationally otherwise.

Heck, the only reason anyone is making much ado about the Pentagon footage is specifically because they want to use it to sow false paranoia over the Pentagon attack. Secretly these conspiracy people are dreading the possibility of any further footage being released as it'll force them to throw their beloved conspiracy stories into the trash. It's the same way all these Bible thumpers are praying for Jesus' second coming but in actuality they're terrified of it ever happening because they know a lot of fake preachers, con artists, and choir boy molesters hiding behind the church are gonna catch a lot of whoopass.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Heck, the only reason anyone is making much ado about the Pentagon footage is specifically because they want to use it to sow false paranoia over the Pentagon attack. Secretly these conspiracy people are dreading the possibility of any further footage being released as it'll force them to throw their beloved conspiracy stories into the trash.

That's BS Dave..
I'd be happy to see decent video of what actually hit the pentagon...

Maybe stop pretending you know how I or others think..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Heck, the only reason anyone is making much ado about the Pentagon footage is specifically because they want to use it to sow false paranoia over the Pentagon attack. Secretly these conspiracy people are dreading the possibility of any further footage being released as it'll force them to throw their beloved conspiracy stories into the trash.

That's BS Dave..
I'd be happy to see decent video of what actually hit the pentagon...

Maybe stop pretending you know how I or others think..

Maybe you would; but you know perfectly well that there would immediately be cries of " fake ".

You only have to look at birthers reaction to Obama's full birth certificate. After claiming that sight of it would settle everything it just took moments to regroup and cry fake.

reply to post by Alfie1


Yes that is true, because it is a fake...

The pentagon is covered from all angles by 100's of CCTV camera's yet not one, NOT ONE, can show a plane, in fact only the footage from ONE camera has been released, why have all the rest been hidden? Why within moments of the event were the FBI out collecting ALL possible CCTV footage and NONE of it has been released?

What happened to the wreckage? What happened to the Engines? Why did the wings not damage the outside walls? Where was the tail of the plane? Where were the bodies and luggage? Why was the impact hole smaller than the aircraft? Why did it hit the only part of the Pentagon that was unoccupied? Why did it hit the part of the Pentagon that had the only records for the missing 2.4 trillion dollars?

Oh of course these are not sensible questions and I am just a conspiracy nut...

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Yes that is true, because it is a fake...

The pentagon is covered from all angles by 100's of CCTV camera's yet not one, NOT ONE, can show a plane, in fact only the footage from ONE camera has been released, why have all the rest been hidden? Why within moments of the event were the FBI out collecting ALL possible CCTV footage and NONE of it has been released?

What happened to the wreckage? What happened to the Engines? Why did the wings not damage the outside walls? Where was the tail of the plane? Where were the bodies and luggage? Why was the impact hole smaller than the aircraft? Why did it hit the only part of the Pentagon that was unoccupied? Why did it hit the part of the Pentagon that had the only records for the missing 2.4 trillion dollars?

Oh of course these are not sensible questions and I am just a conspiracy nut...

You must have had answers to your questions many times because they are soo old. You just didn't like them.

Please present your evidence that multiple cameras must have picked up AA 77. The FBI has made a statement to a US court, on penalty of perjury, that they do not hold any more relevant tapes.

So far as the FBI collecting cctv tapes from the surrounding area, this is standard investigative procedure anywhere in the world. All the tapes have been returned to the owners. It is easy to find the Citgo gas station tape on line if you want to. It shows people filling cars and paying; surprise surprise.

You seriously haven't seen pictures of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon ? including engine parts :-

www.rense.com...

Perhaps you can share with us your evidence that all the records pertaining to missing trillions of dollars were housed in the part of the Pentagon that was struck ?

Btw, thanks for confirming my suspicion that birthers and truthers are pretty interchangeable.

reply to post by Alfie1


Really? All been returned has it? All been disclosed has it? Check your facts:

Lawsuits to Obtain Videos At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The first, documented at Flight77.info, began with a request to the FBI in October of 2004. The second, undertaken by the Judicial Watch, Inc. began with a request to the Department of Defense (DOD) in December of 2004. Following is a timeline of the requests and subsequent lawsuits. Entries relating to the second case are distinguished with dates colored gray. October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel. November 3, 2004: The FBI replies to Bingham's request stating that their search "revealed no record responsive to your FOIA request". November 17, 2004: Hodes files an appeal of Bingham's FOIA request with the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), citing evidence that the videotapes mentioned in the original request exist. December 15, 2004: Christopher J. Farrell of Judicial Watch, Inc. writes to James Hogan in the Office of Freedom of Information/Security Review of the DOD requesting that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOD, and FBI produce: any and all agency records concerning, relating to, or reflecting the following subjects: (1) Video camera recordings obtained by federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from a Nexcomm/Citgo gas station in the vicinity of the Pentagon on or about September 11, 2001. (2) Pentagon security video camera recording(s) showing Flight 77 strike and/or hit and/or crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. (3) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video camera recording(s) obtained by any federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the VDOT "Smart Traffic Center" on or about September 11, 2001. March 7, 2005: The DOJ replies to Hodes' November 17 appeal, admitting that it did possess records responsive to the request but that it could release the records because such a release "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings." January 26, 2005: The DOD advises Judicial Watch, Inc. that it possesses a videotape responsive to the December 15, 2004 request but declines to produce the videotape, citing U.S.C 552(b)(7)(A). March 8, 2005: Bingham's attorney files a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stating that the FBI is in violation of the FOIA for "failing to adequately respond to plaintiff's FOIA request, including failing to adequately search for and release records that the plaintiff believes the agency is in possession of, and for failing to timely respond to the plaintiff's administrative appeal." April 18, 2005: The DOJ files a response to Bingham's March 8 lawsuit denying the plaintiff's request and asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. April 19, 2005: District Judge Paul L. Friedman orders the defendants to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the case brought by Bingham on or before June 21, 2005. June 10, 2005: The DOD denies Judicial Watch's administrative appeal, claiming that the video is exempt as part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui. August 1, 2005: Jeffrey D. Kahn, an attorney for the DOJ's Civil Division files a 23-page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Scans of the document are posted on Flight77.info. August 29, 2005: Hodes files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and a STATEMENT OF FACT ON WHICH THERE EXIST A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED in response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment. September 9, 2005: Kahn files a REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77. September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005. October 20, 2005: The DOJ sends a letter to Hodes claiming that the requested material is exempt. October 24, 2005: Hodes appeals the DOJ's October 20 claim that its material is exempt. February 22, 2006: Judicial Watch, Inc. files a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Defense for its refusal to disclose records sought under the FOIA request. May 5, 2006: Judge Friedman orders the defendants to show cause on or before May 26, 2006 why their motion for summary judgment should not be denied as moot, noting that the criminal proceedings against Moussaoui have ended. May 16, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains two videos from the DOD, and posts them on their website. The site is down for about half of the day due to demand. September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. 3 The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack. December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner. 4

Source

And no I did not see the wreckage of a plane, I saw a hole, I saw no damage to the walls at ll from where the engines would of hit, in fact where the wings and engines would of hit, even the windows were not broken, strange considering these engines weigh several tones and unlike the fuselage of a plane will not crumple upon impact. There were no bodies, the black box recording have never been released

And please for our reference, show examples of commercial aircraft crashing anywhere in the world where ALL the wreckage disappeared, where the engines were not found, where there were no bodies, in fact it has only ever happened twice in history, oddly enough this was both on the same day, the 9th of September 2001, just as trying to show how skyscrapers collapsing from a fire, only ever happened on one date 9/11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Not really. There will still be people who wouldn't accept any Pentagon video footage even if it were released. Photographs and eyewitness accounts of the Germans slaughtering civilians are common as water and yet there are people who'll still insist the holocaust is fake. We have warehouses of footage and photographs of the space program and yet there are people who'll still insist the moon landings were faked. Two planes hit two towers in downtown Manhattan where 100,000 saw it and yet there are people who'll still insist the planes were holograms. When these conspiracy people zealously want to believe in their conspiracies so strongly, there isn't a single thing on the face of the planet that will convince them rationally otherwise.

Heck, the only reason anyone is making much ado about the Pentagon footage is specifically because they want to use it to sow false paranoia over the Pentagon attack. Secretly these conspiracy people are dreading the possibility of any further footage being released as it'll force them to throw their beloved conspiracy stories into the trash. It's the same way all these Bible thumpers are praying for Jesus' second coming but in actuality they're terrified of it ever happening because they know a lot of fake preachers, con artists, and choir boy molesters hiding behind the church are gonna catch a lot of whoopass.

You know what GoodOlDave I never really thought of it that way before. You are right... there could be proof right smack in their face and some people would still not believe the footage or witnesses. But at least with a clear video of a plane crashing into the pentagon there would be less people thinking about a conspiracy theory.

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


I don't know where you get your information, or lack of information, from.

Body parts of AA 77 passengers were recoverd from the Pentagon and dna identified.

When you refer to the black box I presume you mean the flight data recorder. It has obviously passed you by that this has been decoded. The last few seconds only recently :-

journalof911studies.com...

by prominent truther Dr Frank legge and a computer expert Warren Stutt.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Heck, the only reason anyone is making much ado about the Pentagon footage is specifically because they want to use it to sow false paranoia over the Pentagon attack. Secretly these conspiracy people are dreading the possibility of any further footage being released as it'll force them to throw their beloved conspiracy stories into the trash.

That's BS Dave..
I'd be happy to see decent video of what actually hit the pentagon...

No you wouldn't. I know for a fact that you wouldn't. For one thing, the Pentagon is right in the middle of an industrial park and flanked by two major highways, and there were hordes of eyewitnesses, all of them saying it was a passenger jet that hit the building. For another, there are plenty of photos showing all the little bits and pieces of wreckage all over the front lawn. For yet another, the black box was recovered from the rubble and it was irrefutably determined to have come from flight 77. Despite all that, the conspriacy mongors insist all the eyewitneses are planted disinformation agents, the photographs are faked, and the black box was planted. Heck, you people even accuse the one still photo that was released of being a fake, and all it showed was a blur.

If after all that, if you're attempting to claim you're going to be convinced it was flight 77 if you saw video of the plane, you will be lying. If they ever did release the video you people would accuse if of being faked as well. You know that and so do I.

The video dont exist because flt77 didnt hit the pentogen

And no I did not see the wreckage of a plane, I saw a hole, I saw no damage to the walls at ll from where the engines would of hit, in fact where the wings and engines would of hit, even the windows were not broken, strange considering these engines weigh several tones and unlike the fuselage of a plane will not crumple upon impact. There were no bodies, the black box recording have never been released

And please for our reference, show examples of commercial aircraft crashing anywhere in the world where ALL the wreckage disappeared, where the engines were not found, where there were no bodies, in fact it has only ever happened twice in history, oddly enough this was both on the same day, the 9th of September 2001, just as trying to show how skyscrapers collapsing from a fire, only ever happened on one date 9/11

Example as requested I'm pretty sure they found more of a plane at the Pentagon than they found of ValuJet flight 592.

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
reply to post by mileslong54

 

Your grasp of technology is astounding.

www.nationalreview.com...

the long and short of it is that the multiple layers are simply artifacts of the means by which the birth certificate was digitized and archived. If it was the case that somebody photoshopped or altered the image, they would have to have no brains to export it with the multiple layers still intact, and even if he did overlook this, the multiple layers would correspond with various elements on the page, not each be random chunks of document.

Ah yes, lets go with the National Review's word for the layers, they always tell the truth because it says National on the page it must be true.....

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here a few videos if your still hard up to defend the joke of a birth certificate....
Part 1


Part 2
youtu.be...
Part 3
youtu.be...

and my personal favorite that debunks your wonderful National Reviews OCR explination Mr. Technology expert

Part 4

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by filosophia

 

You are aware that the camera in question was a SLOW SCAN - it was designed to record only like 1 frame a
second unlike normal camera speeds of 24-30 frames/second

At such a slow frame rate any motion will tend to be jerky and blurred especially for something as fast as
a jet airliner approaching at 500 mph

oh sure, like I'm supposed to believe that the billions of dollars the pentagon has to throw around (so much so that 2.3 trillions went missing the day before 9/11) that they can't seem to afford a camera that is post-1930 technology?

What a great security system that pentagon has, so long as you move faster than a tortoise the camera won't catch you. You can even be as big as a 757 and NOTHING.

If the speed of the plane was too fast there would be a blur, or at the very least a second where a giant tail section appears suddenly in view, but that's if you believe they'd really use a slow scan camera at the pentagon. What would be the point of a slow scan camera? It's ridiculous to think that the most guarded military base in the world would use a slow scan camera, what kind of moron would do that? If that were the case I would be 100 percent certain this was a criminal cover up, because the only time you would use a slow scan camera is when you didn't want the criminal act to be seen. Imagine if you worked at a 7-11 and your employee for some reason switched the real time camera with a slow scan camera, and it just so happened that 100 bucks was stolen from the register, are you really going to just walk away from that with no questions or suspicions? There is absolutely no point in having a security camera that is a slow scan camera. The two are contradictory. That's like having a blind night guard, or a deaf watch dog, or a cold fire. It's an oxymoron, and there's absolutely no use for a slow scan camera, no reason to even design it, unless you plan on committing a crime.

So, fine, it was a slow scan camera, that's proof it was a conspiracy. Because why would you ever use such a thing!?

Yeah they are trying to tell us something. That they can release the most rubbish video ever of a plane hitting the Pentegon and get away with it. Its like this is soo rubbish but what ya gonna do? Its a mind op.

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
reply to post by filosophia

 

The "white streak" is obviously the nose of the plane, not smoke emanating from a "blue object." Regardless, the pixels that represent whatever the smoke would be coming from remain sedentary throughout the video. Obviously if it were a missile, as you suggest, the "blue object" wouldn't be in the same place a frame before the "smoke" appears, as the smoke appears, and then in the next frame. Think about it.

If the white streak is the nose of the plane then what is just in front of it that is dark or blue ?

YOu can't just act like you don't see it appear just as the white does, yet infront of it....It IS THERE....so what is it though....