What actually hit the Pentagon: an old stone apparently left unturned

[agentbluescreen]

Maybe you still don't get it, when you see the wagon wheels sort-of turning backwards on a TV it's just the front and back ones strobing, not the top and bottom ones, (unless the film also is) this produces "bow-tie" sorts of confusing, blurred motion distortions. On film the whole wheel of spokes strobe together at once and actually can stand still or all rotate backwards, double, triple, quadruple etc  due to the discrete framing and frame rate "strobing" of the whole range of all visible moving vector velocities at once.

TV only strobes vertical-motion vectors (within most practical visual limits).

Video (TV) is a "panoramic scanning' stack of lines imaging system designed to favor smooth horizontal motions (like racing and sports) over smooth vertical ones (like crashing-down rockets). Alternate field video has nearly continuous horizontal sampling bandwidth in complementary adjacent, sequential 33 thousandths of a second horizontal sampling scans but it is still as slow and as stroboscopic as film is, vertically. Film is a completely-uniform stroboscopic medium.

[Dig]

It appears that you kids never had any children to teach about not lying.

If they have all the other videos that show a plane, show them to us, we want to stop bothering them.
If they have all the other videos that show no plane, show them all to us, we will stop bothering them.

If they have any other reason not to show us the evidence they are lying sacks of crap, and they must have something to hide.

I'm proving to you scientifically that the only thing that they could have been hiding in the (recorded time-distance apertures of) missing frames of those Judicial Watch videos is a 20 foot long 500 mph "757" (if that's what you prefer to call it).

Also, the approaching 44 foot tall tail of a real 757 would have been, in the left hand height of the horizontal bandwidth of the frames, as tall as (actually taller than) the 55 foot tall back top corner of the building twice as far away, Even if the tail was that small at a distance (it's not) it could not disappear at the camera's dazzlingly fast horizontal line scanning bandwidth speeds,

Refresh rates only strobe motions up and down in TV

did you even read my reply?

[Dig]

Maybe you still don't get it, when you see the wagon wheels sort-of turning backwards on a TV it's just the front and back ones strobing, not the top and bottom ones, (unless the film also is) this produces "bow-tie" sorts of confusing, blurred motion distortions. On film the whole wheel of spokes strobe together at once and actually can stand still or all rotate backwards, double, triple, quadruple etc  due to the discrete framing and frame rate "strobing" of the whole range of all visible moving vector velocities at once.

TV only strobes vertical-motion vectors (within most practical visual limits).

Video (TV) is a "panoramic scanning' stack of lines imaging system designed to favor smooth horizontal motions (like racing and sports) over smooth vertical ones (like crashing-down rockets). Alternate field video has nearly continuous horizontal sampling bandwidth in complementary adjacent, sequential 33 thousandths of a second horizontal sampling scans but it is still as slow and as stroboscopic as film is, vertically. Film is a completely-uniform stroboscopic medium.

You still don't get it. The only argument you have is: "since no tapes...must be missile". All the wild analogies in the world boils down to that one failed argument. It lacks credibility especially since dozens if not hundreds of people saw a plane and zero people saw a missile.

[citizenx]

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=133cdb048f27ae4de4dbee88b9a15458&attachmentid=129818&d=1286203499



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls&feature=player_embedded

[citizenx]

[agentbluescreen]

You still don't get it. The only argument you have is: "since no tapes...must be missile". All the wild analogies in the world boils down to that one failed argument. It lacks credibility especially since dozens if not hundreds of people saw a plane and zero people saw a missile.

What 10 or 20 blackmailed stooges were told to say they saw, and another 20 want to be heroes want to claim they saw, and another 20 want to think they saw is irrelevant.  It's what the dissenting witnesses saw that is the most believable and important.

When a damned witness looking directly at 3 light poles right in front of him "doesn't see them" that is important

When the attack itself is illogical, stupid, ineffective and totally unproductive to those it is being blamed upon that is important

When the attack only benefits it's supposed 'victims' that is important

When two point three trillion dollars is still missing forever now because of that that is important

When the point ever most awkwardly chosen to be "conveniently attacked' is universally known to have been rebuilt and hardened ahead of time, out of dozens of other far far better choices on the same building that is important

When the plan of attack follows a well known established theocratic-fascist-socialist script thousands of years old to the letter, (Daniel Chapter 8 ), that is important

When 5 witnesses all positively confirm the totally wrong flightpath, that is critically important.

When 3 other witnesses see a plane fly away, that is important.

When there are calls supposedly made from the aircraft that could not have been made. that is important

When the flight recorder data is tampered with and impossible to perform with that aircraft, that is important

When the same flight recorder data shows the cockpit door was never opened or closed, that is important

When a woman crawls out of the hole in the wall with her child minutes later and isn't burnt to death by the largely missing 10,000 gallons of "jet fuel" that had no other way of escaping, that is important.

When witnesses distinctly smelled cordite that is important.

When witnesses confide that "this is too big for me" that is important

When witnesses detected 20 X normal radiation readings that is important

When suspicious 'tents' with sail-cloth wrapped instrumentation packages are being hustled off the lawn that is important

When nuclear "decontamination tents' are necessary that is important

When specific frames are edited out of timed photographic records that is important

When slick falsified 3D animations are contrived to make the impossible seem possible that is important

When Limestone is Calcinated white that is very, very important

I could go on (and am)

And most important of all, by far, is all this physical and corroborating evidence, that is adding up to a completely different narrative is important

[citizenx]

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44286/NEW_9_11_VIDEO_MISSILE_STRIKE_PENTAGON/

larsonstdoc posted this vid when it first appeared in April.  No one commeted at all -- except his thread was moved to disinfo/no planes/video fakery.  No attempt was ever made to debunk the footage itself.

If there are vids, as it would appear there are, which seem to provide evidence that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was something other than a jetliner, this evidence should at least be systematically be debunked -- if it can be.

Otherwise, the question of is there any other video may already be answered, and not in the negative.

This footage has been out there for ten months now and at least deserves analysis.

So, go ahead shoot.

Actually, I would like to see a real technical analysis of this video once and for all which would settle the question.  I don't belive it has been done elsewhere on the web just yet.

[mr anderson]

You still don't get it. The only argument you have is: "since no tapes...must be missile". All the wild analogies in the world boils down to that one failed argument. It lacks credibility especially since dozens if not hundreds of people saw a plane and zero people saw a missile.

Exactly.

I really wonder if these questions, constantly ignored in favour of circumstantial evidence to prove a pre-determined conclusion; missile- have ever been asked in the 9 pages this thread has gone on;

Where's the $2.3trillion? Why was the Pentagon hit in the first place? Why was there a stand-down order? Why hasn't the 84 surveillance tapes been released?

[lamourlady]

larsonstdoc posted this vid when it first appeared in April.  No one commeted at all -- except his thread was moved to disinfo/no planes/video fakery.  No attempt was ever made to debunk the footage itself.

If there are vids, as it would appear there are, which seem to provide evidence that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was something other than a jetliner, this evidence should at least be systematically be debunked -- if it can be.

Otherwise, the question of is there any other video may already be answered, and not in the negative.

This footage has been out there for ten months now and at least deserves analysis.

So, go ahead shoot.

Actually, I would like to see a real technical analysis of this video once and for all which would settle the question.  I don't belive it has been done elsewhere on the web just yet.

Thanks, Citizen, as I hadn't seen that video.  What is that small white 'torpedo' looking thing, which, coincidentally looks like it has been painted to look like a plane?

[agentbluescreen]

oh i forgot

When certain people who still benefit handsomely from these crimes, as still unproven to be exactly as alleged, still criminally withhold no less than 80 other video surveillance recordings that could easily put an end to all suspicion or at least remove any reason for it, because they have "reasons to", that, ITSELF, is very important PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

[citizenx]

My guess, if it is real would be some type of cruise missile, but maybe someone with more knowledge of missiles could identify it.

[Freeski]

larsonstdoc posted this vid when it first appeared in April.  No one commeted at all -- except his thread was moved to disinfo/no planes/video fakery.  No attempt was ever made to debunk the footage itself.

If there are vids, as it would appear there are, which seem to provide evidence that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was something other than a jetliner, this evidence should at least be systematically be debunked -- if it can be.

Otherwise, the question of is there any other video may already be answered, and not in the negative.

This footage has been out there for ten months now and at least deserves analysis.

So, go ahead shoot.

Actually, I would like to see a real technical analysis of this video once and for all which would settle the question.  I don't belive it has been done elsewhere on the web just yet.

Do you have a link to larson's OP of that?

[Dig]

What 10 or 20 blackmailed stooges were told to say they saw, and another 20 want to be heroes want to claim they saw, and another 20 want to think they saw is irrelevant.  It's what the dissenting witnesses saw that is the most believable and important.

What dissenting witness? In the case of JFK, RFK, and MLK...the majority of witnesses went against the official story...even Connelly who was in the limo.

83 witness reports, all visual reporting expresses a plane, zero witnesses saw a missile: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta03.html#p3

When a damned witness looking directly at 3 light poles right in front of him "doesn't see them" that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When the attack itself is illogical, stupid, ineffective and totally unproductive to those it is being blamed upon that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When the attack only benefits it's supposed 'victims' that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When the point chosen to be "conveniently attacked' is universally known to have been rebuilt and hardened ahead of time, out of dozens of other far far better choices on the same building that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When the plan of attack follows a well known established theocratic-fascist-socialist script thousands of years old to the letter, (Daniel Chapter 8 ), that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When 5 witnesses all positively confirm the totally wrong flightpath, that is critically important.

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When 3 other witnesses see a plane fly away, that is important.

Fly away where? You mean the other planes in the area because no one saw a plane break through the fireball in the thoroughly debunked "flyover" psyops. How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When there are calls supposedly made from the aircraft that could not have been made. that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When the flight recorder data is tampered with and impossible to perform with that aircraft, that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When a woman crawls out of the hole in the wall with her child minutes later and isn't burnt to death by the largely missing 10,000 gallons of "jet fuel" that had no other way of escaping, that is important.

WTC had people standing in the openings hit by the planes minutes after the fireballs too. How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When witnesses distinctly smelled cordite that is important.

That proves there was a missile? How does cordite = missile rather than explosives? How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When witnesses confide that "this is too big for me" that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When witnesses detected 20 X normal radiation readings that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When suspicious 'tents' with sail-cloth wrapped instrumentation packages are being hustled off the lawn that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When nuclear "decontamination tents' are necessary that is important

That proves there was a missile? You are now saying it was a radioactive missile? How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When specific frames are edited out of timed photographic records that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When slick falsified 3D animations are contrived to make the impossible seem possible that is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

When Limestone is Calcinated white that is very, very important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

I could go on (and am)

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

And most important of all, by far, is all this physical and corroborating evidence, that is adding up to a completely different narrative is important

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

You are taking 80% issues that everyone agrees with and superimposing them on a theory that has many holes, namely over 75 from witness testimonies. Not one thing you said, nor everything you said proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that absolutely a missile hit the pentagon and a plane which everyone saw was never there (or flew over which I doubt you even believe due to the overwhelming evidence against it).

[Dig]

oh i forgot

When certain people who still benefit handsomely from these crimes, as still unproven to be exactly as alleged, still criminally withhold no less than 80 other video surveillance recordings that could easily put an end to all suspicion or at least remove any reason for it, because they have "reasons to", that, ITSELF, is very important PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

How does that prove there was absolutely a missile which no one saw and not a plane which everyone saw?

Your extent of logical reasoning can be boiled down to the following:

If Apple = Fruit, then (No apple = No fruit) AND (No apple = Guitar signed by Jimi Hendrix)

[citizenx]

Do you have a link to larson's OP of that?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=945.msg1003177#msg1003177

   http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44286/NEW_9_11_VIDEO_MISSILE_STRIKE_PENTAGON/

[agentbluescreen]

It doesn't matter what anyone saw - the cameras are G-d. They, taken together, with their specific removed gaps, absolutely prove, scientifically that according to the laws of electronics, optics, distances, time and space, whatever it was, at that speed, it had to be 20 some feet long.

It's a simple matter of the two foreground "masks" silly! The rear camera uses the ticket dispenser as a distant (might be big) background mask, the ticket dispenser has a convenient lens chip over the heliport they use as a much shorter (closer -can't be long) foreground mask. The timing and size of the two masks prove the length of the missing object, a longer object up close could not be hidden by the lens chip.

distance over the flightpath varies from 650 feet (at east) to 472 feet (at west) from the camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhkQDXlSdMY

The introductory part of this report is fairly innocuous, and they do show some creative montages for the purpose of illustrating the narrative, but scan to the halfway point 3:25 for the frame tests.

When one runs the frames forward using the cop car as the reference they go out of sync (visible by the smoke patterns) BUT WHEn you line up the smoke patterns and then run back with the proper offset you are distinctly missing frames of missile from each camera (an object hidden too small to be a jet)

[agentbluescreen]

Measured from the guardhouse:

- to the two trees by the building edge at end of the lots: 762 feet

- to the center of the attack point (on the footpath approach) is 472 feet

762 feet away from the camera is a 55 foot high back corner of the building

A 757's tail at 44 feet high  that is 310 feet closer to the camera would be taller than the back of the building (even the fuselage/jets would be almost as tall)

[citizenx]

I was approximately 3/4 mile away from it that morning, was doing a service call and stuck in traffic. I remember listening to Stern's show on the FM earlier that morning, when 1 of his side kicks was mumbling about a WTC building just exploded, and Howard thought they were just goofing on him, then shortly after, the 2nd tower got hit. Howard pretty much cut out the clowning and actually apologized & went off air because even he smelled attacks. This is what i was pondering while i was radio surfing for more "news" (have no faith or belief in the mass media news circus), hoping for NPR somewhere and wondering who the hell was blowing up NY, when i heard this immense engine sound and because i was heading away from pentagon, doing 45mph i had to turn and look back, all while driving in zany DC traffic. What i saw was so surreal, it looked like a white skinny pencil trailed by this zig-zag shaped white smoke running parallel to ground but this was @ quite a distance and hard to make out details. It was so quick & to try and mentally piece together what was happening @ that very moment it was evolving in front of my eyes, the fireball kinda took everything out of the picture by then. A lot of commuters had stopped or slowed by now, and i pulled over as well. First thing i can tell you, i saw 2 aircraft way, way off the horizon, 1 coming this way, the other was going from left to right, away from the Pentagon. I noticed these because I was fearing WW3 has now officially @ this point. So my friend, I dont know what it was, but after doing some size research, I can say w/ 100% assured accuracy that it was TOO SMALL to be a Boeing. I'm not going to even try and explain what happened, all I want to know is WHO really, truly did these horrendous deeds, and that we bring justice to the real perpetrators, and lose this Bullshit joke of an excuse for a law, "Patriot Act", and bring back our Constitution.

[Tsul777]

IT'S NOW DEFINITIVE - A MISSILE HIT THE PENTAGON

Posted By: CliffR <Send E-Mail>
Date: Wednesday, 1-Sep-2010 14:53:05 Since the 911 Pentagon strike, numerous attempts have been made to show the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a passenger jet. Similarly attempts have been made to disprove the official story. All have their merits but none could be said to be conclusive beyond all doubt until now.

A new article recently released on website www.wholelook.com puts an end to any doubt that the object hitting the Pentagon was a missile and not a passenger jet, and that the official story is a bunch of twaddle.

The article is in a section of www.wholelook.com called ‘Controversial Issues’. More specifically at link:

http://www.wholelook.com/content/missile1.asp .

 

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=182028

The link is gone.
Psyop? I don't think it's credible anyway. The same site has another theory about WTC and I won't go there.

[iks83]

larsonstdoc posted this vid when it first appeared in April.  No one commeted at all -- except his thread was moved to disinfo/no planes/video fakery.  No attempt was ever made to debunk the footage itself.

If there are vids, as it would appear there are, which seem to provide evidence that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was something other than a jetliner, this evidence should at least be systematically be debunked -- if it can be.

Otherwise, the question of is there any other video may already be answered, and not in the negative.

This footage has been out there for ten months now and at least deserves analysis.

So, go ahead shoot.

Actually, I would like to see a real technical analysis of this video once and for all which would settle the question.  I don't belive it has been done elsewhere on the web just yet.

Analyzing something that clearly is a fake is a waste of time.

As for what lamourlady said

Thanks, Citizen, as I hadn't seen that video.  What is that small white 'torpedo' looking thing, which, coincidentally looks like it has been painted to look like a plane?

You should start reading the thread from the beginning. Jimd debunked lots of the retarded theories already like here:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=164982.msg983435#msg983435

The stupid missile fired from some droppen launchpad people were carrying around or whatever. Seriously those conspiracy creationists piss me off.

And the small torpedo looking thing that has been photoshopped to look like a plane has been debunked somewhere else on the forum. Seriously if you have a website using fake photoshopped images to fool people you seriously believe their video footage as well? The problem is the web is so spammed shut with those fake videos that you cant find the real stock footage that was used. There is no source no nothing. Judging from the video quality it is probably from the early 90s.

[citizenx]

Analyzing something that clearly is a fake is a waste of time.

If it is that simple, please enlighten me (instead of merely patronizing me).

As for what lamourlady said
You should start reading the thread from the beginning. Jimd debunked lots of the retarded theories already like here:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=164982.msg983435#msg983435

The stupid missile fired from some droppen launchpad people were carrying around or whatever. Seriously those conspiracy creationists piss me off.

And the small torpedo looking thing that has been photoshopped to look like a plane has been debunked somewhere else on the forum.

I will try to find those threads/posts, but if you can remember where, please post links and I will take a look at them.  I really am trying to be objective, iks, no matter what you think.

 Seriously if you have a website using fake photoshopped images to fool people you seriously believe their video footage as well?

Again if they are obviously faked it should be simple to point out how.  In fact, if it's so easy, can you do it?

Pics/Videos or it can't be done.

The problem is the web is so spammed shut with those fake videos that you cant find the real stock footage that was used.

No, you can't find the other 78-79 films because the gov't. confiscated them and probably destroyed them as well.

If there are so many fake films of 9/11 go ahead and post one obvious fake for comparison.  (more if you are up to it.)

There is no source no nothing.

Oddly enough, I am with you on this one.  I am just as bothered by the lack of a source, but since so many 9/11 whistle-blowers have been arrested, imprisoned and maybe killed -- it isn't really that mysterious.

Judging from the video quality it is probably from the early 90s.
 

Wow, they were really planning ahead then, eh?  

[iks83]

If it is that simple, please enlighten me (instead of merely patronizing me).

No, you can't find the other 78-79 films because the gov't. confiscated them and probably destroyed them as well.

Wow, they were really planning ahead then, eh?   

I was talking about finding the original video was used to make a fake missile in there. Like I said it looks like the footage is from the 90s. But you cant find it for example on youtube because if you type in pentagon footage you can imagine what you get.

About debunking it... seriously? I have to tell you? Well first you have a mouse pointer in it so its far from any original footage. Then you have a massive decrease in quality which is usually done on purpose when fake videos are being made. You have some video linked on some crappy site that causes my browser to crash from all the malware and scripts. A very credible source. If a whistleblower want to leak something he should use cryptome. Then the usual epic movie soundtrack to make it seem interesting. Its a fake ok, a hoax, something to fool the stupid people. I mean they even show you a slowed down close up where you see that the explosion has fewer fps than the rest of the video. Cmon man are you that stupid? Do we have to debunk the all the crap out there every 4 year old can recognize as fake? Why dont YOU make an analysis eh? Read up on that stuff... make yourself knowledgable and not just swallow every crap you stumble upon and then ask other people to do the work for you. One goal of disinfo is to make people waste their time.

[citizenx]

Let me turn it around.  If a real video (in your opinion) showed up tomorrow of a plane or a missile at the Pentagon, how would you know that it was real (nowadays)?

What would contitute proof to you?

What could?

You still haven't said anything very substantial about the video that would point to fakery/obvious doctoring.  Yes it is poor quality -- so is the Judicial Watch video (is that fake?)  The pointer means nothing. I had no problem with malware on any of those sites, but I will take your word for it.  Who know how those sites may have been attacked, by whom or why (hint, hint, hint)?


Yes, the video is intentionally slowed down after showing it at real time speed so people can examine it in detail.  Yes, the soundtrack is ghey.  If I was the music director, I guess, I would have probably opted for no music at all myself.  (Obviously this was an amateur video.)

Finally, if you could point me in the direction of any good resources on video fakery, I'd love to preuse them, unless constructive criticism isn't really your speciality or profession.

Other people around here are as snide as you, but they usually try to help steer people in what they view as the right direction (in fairness).  I don's see much research out of you or education, just drive-by's aimed to debunk others' opinions, theories, hypotheses etc.

At least jim and Dig offer evidence for the opposing point-of-view.

I guess with your superior (Teutonic?) powers of reason, you can dispense with that, right?

Frankly, I'm losing interest in your point-of-view.  I'd rather hear from the grown-ups in the room.  If I'm going to be slapped around for my ideas, I'd rather it was from one of them.

[citizenx]

OK, iks.  Here's an obvious bit of fakery:



Amazing how the plane comes from out of nowhere. (It's also amazing how it takes out the light pole on the right.)

[citizenx]

Oh, here's another bit of video fakery -- the "judicial watch" video (analyzed):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnzh-EyxKwc&feature=related

Can you say "fade up"?  (There's some technical video forensic jargon, if you're into terminology.)

[iks83]

Let me turn it around.  If a real video (in your opinion) showed up tomorrow of a plane or a missile at the Pentagon, how would you know that it was real (nowadays)?

What would contitute proof to you?

What could?

Well it would look real for one thing. You see its called experience. I played around with 3D animation, video and picture editing. If it looks real but something is odd then it needs further investigation. At least from my perspective. Someone else might think something is odd although its completely normal but he hasnt the understanding to realize that. Like the tv fakery people. But when they encounter something odd in their view they scream tv fakery and holograms instead of investigating it.

You still haven't said anything very substantial about the video that would point to fakery/obvious doctoring.  Yes it is poor quality -- so is the Judicial Watch video (is that fake?)  The pointer means nothing. I had no problem with malware on any of those sites, but I will take your word for it.  Who know how those sites may have been attacked, by whom or why (hint, hint, hint)?

I did say that the explosion has less fps than the rest of the video. I think that is a quite substantial indicator. The pointer means the video is doctored period. Its no original source.

Yes, the video is intentionally slowed down after showing it at real time speed so people can examine it in detail.  Yes, the soundtrack is ghey.  If I was the music director, I guess, I would have probably opted for no music at all myself.  (Obviously this was an amateur video.)

Yes and like I said if you examine it in that detail it becomes obvious that its fake. And yes it was an amateur video, amateur fake video. Or would you, if you had such bombshell footage make some silly video out of it? Right there it tells you its a load of crap. And still I waste my time pointing out the obvious.

Finally, if you could point me in the direction of any good resources on video fakery, I'd love to preuse them, unless constructive criticism isn't really your speciality or profession.

There are probably sites that specialize in video fakery. But why not start with some regular video editing sites that show you how to do stuff. Its kinda off topic but on youtube is a guy called mysteryguitarman or something. He makes videos with some quite awesome effects where I wonder how he does that. Probably a film major. He could make a fake pentagon missile vid that would indeed look very real.

Other people around here are as snide as you, but they usually try to help steer people in what they view as the right direction (in fairness).  I don's see much research out of you or education, just drive-by's aimed to debunk others' opinions, theories, hypotheses etc.

At least jim and Dig offer evidence for the opposing point-of-view.

I guess with your superior (Teutonic?) powers of reason, you can dispense with that, right?

I really do think I must have superior powers of reason judging by all the idiocy people fall for. And I bet jim and Dig feel the same.

Frankly, I'm losing interest in your point-of-view.  I'd rather hear from the grown-ups in the room.  If I'm going to be slapped around for my ideas, I'd rather it was from one of them.

Good! I dont want to waste my time anymore on those faked videos and pictures anyways.

[citizenx]

Well it would look real for one thing. You see its called experience. I played around with 3D animation, video and picture editing. If it looks real but something is odd then it needs further investigation. At least from my perspective. Someone else might think something is odd although its completely normal but he hasnt the understanding to realize that. Like the tv fakery people. But when they encounter something odd in their view they scream tv fakery and holograms instead of investigating it.


I did say that the explosion has less fps than the rest of the video. I think that is a quite substantial indicator. The pointer means the video is doctored period. Its no original source.

I posted several versions of the 'helicopter footage' -- only one was a reversed image with a pointer on the screen.

Yes and like I said if you examine it in that detail it becomes obvious that its fake. And yes it was an amateur video, amateur fake video. Or would you, if you had such bombshell footage make some silly video out of it? Right there it tells you its a load of crap. And still I waste my time pointing out the obvious.

I don't know, maybe the person that edited the one youtube video from the 'helicopter footage" felt he needed to get all dramatic.  It's not my style either, but that was again just one of the four versions I have posted now.

There are probably sites that specialize in video fakery. But why not start with some regular video editing sites that show you how to do stuff. Its kinda off topic but on youtube is a guy called mysteryguitarman or something. He makes videos with some quite awesome effects where I wonder how he does that. Probably a film major. He could make a fake pentagon missile vid that would indeed look very real.

I'll check it out for future reference.  Thx (no sarcasm)

I really do think I must have superior powers of reason judging by all the idiocy people fall for. And I bet jim and Dig feel the same.

Se, there you go with the idiot thing again.  OK, I think you're a dumb-kopf, too.  How does that make you feel?  Do you care what I think of you?  Do you think I care what you think of me?  What's the point of trash-talk like that?

Good! I dont want to waste my time anymore on those faked videos and pictures anyways.

I'm glad we've found something we can agree on.

Guten tag.

[lamourlady]

Oh, here's another bit of video fakery -- the "judicial watch" video (analyzed):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnzh-EyxKwc&feature=related

Can you say "fade up"?  (There's some technical video forensic jargon, if you're into terminology.)

Nice work by this gentleman.  An obvious fade up.  I can't say whether it is a plane or not, but the fact that there must surely be more legitimate video footage and the obvious fakery to this 'publicized' video confirms my always present suspicions.  The reality is that we know how these basturds work, always have, so I put nothing past them and seek only the truth...not to be right in my own mind.  And I will investigate further the small, torpedo looking item. 

[agentbluescreen]

With all due respect CitizenX, that "helicopter" animation from the Russian site uses ancient 197-80's stock footage before they added the newer rear parking lot to that side of the building, and the entire gigantic south east waterfront parking lot across from the marina is also missing. They also had to cut the bottom off to hide the other missing walkway-bridges.

It also shows a missile attacking over the North (WITNESS) Path, not the impossible-FDR, punch out and physical evidence trajectory  over the footpath and likely-phony removed lamp poles.

No missile or airplane on the correct North flight path described by all the blind (non-USA Today paid) "highway" witnesses could have caused damage to the outer 3 rings from the 45 degree-south angle that resulted

It's kinda like that old plain gray cruise missile photograph on a jitney by the transport plane. I'm still surprised nobodies yet colored-it-up as a Japanese "Zero" to blame it for Pearl Harbor

[agentbluescreen]

No missile or airplane on the correct North flight path NOT described by all the blind (non-USA Today paid) "highway" witnesses could have caused damage to the outer 3 rings from the 45 degree-south angle that resulted

The flight path witness accounts all completely disagree with the supposed drive-by and peeping Tom "witnesses", doctored FDR-data and evident damage trajectory.

[citizenx]

With all due respect CitizenX, that "helicopter" animation from the Russian site uses ancient 197-80's stock footage before they added the newer rear parking lot to that side of the building, and the entire gigantic south east waterfront parking lot across from the marina is also missing. They also had to cut the bottom off to hide the other missing walkway-bridges.

 
Finally an intelligent answer. OK.

I'm willing to accept that.  This did originate from a Russian site then?

There just is no real un-doctored video then.

I agree, BTW, the doctored Judicial Watch video could not possibly have contained a jetliner even with the missing frames.  Even though it is obviously doctored, it is still proof.

[agentbluescreen]

[agentbluescreen]

Lest anyone here think I am dreaming about these two ZioNAZI-criminally doctored JW Guardhouse Videos here's some more supporting analysis that concludes that the so-called "757" that struck the Pentagon, unless it had been equipped with a Romulan Cloaking Device, could only have been a totally uncatchable aircraft capable of conservative cruising speeds in the range of MACH 10!

It also completely, scientifically, geometrically and algebraically confirms the impossibility of a 155 foot long 45 foot high plane the size of a Boeing 757 being capable of escaping any NTSC CAMERA (at that depth of field and those horizontal distances) at any speed it is capable of ever reaching anywhere in this known universe.

I am glad I found this before going to the trouble of physically repeating all the same measurements and calculations that my technical intuition had already assured me of, myself.

EXCERPT -

SLEUTHS: MATH-GEOMETRY ANALYSIS

I intend to TRY and find out more details of the photos themselves, IE: amount of time shown per frame, amount of time BETWEEN each frame, and the entire amount of time represented by all frames taken together. I can't promise any useful info, but I shall give it my best effort. In the meantime, could you possibly pose the above "equation" to a math-inclined friend or sleuth?

To steal a phrase from a popular TV show..."The Truth is Out There" Kent, and my butt is going into overtime to help uncover it. Your work is greatly appreciated, and I would like to thank you for the time you devote to it.

MATH SLEUTHS: HELP

CALCULATION
Date: 3/14/02 2:57:28 PM Pacific Standard Time

It was previously given that the cruising speed of a 757 is approx. 600 mph. According to the FAA report, AA77 was last reported doing 458 kts, which is 527 mph at 8:56 am. Just prior to the strike, the jet passed over the White House then completed a hair-pin 270 degree turn before slamming into the Pentagon. This hair-pin turn would have bled-off a lot of their air-speed, however the dive into the Pentagon with engines at full thrust might have brought the final approach speed back up to around 600 mph / 521kts. So let's run with that as a worse-case scenario. Remember the plane's air-speed was most likely slower than 521 kts. due to the hair-pin turn it just completed.

Assumed AA77 Inbound Velocity: 600 miles/hour = 10 miles/minute = 1 mile or 5280 feet every 6 seconds = 880 feet/sec.

Now NTSA standards which are used in 99% of all North American A/V equipment operates at a rate of 30 interlaced frames per second. That is one complete frame every 30th of a second and one partial or interlaced field scan every 60th of a second, which is essentially slaved to our AC frequency of 60 Hz.

So if you take the plane's velocity of 880 feet/sec. and divide that by the full frame rate of 1/30th of a second, the camera will capture a complete image of the plane every 29.3 feet, given a constant speed of 600 mph. Or if your video equipment can freeze-frame on individual interlace fields it will capture a partial scan (every other scan line) of the plane's travel in 14.6 foot intervals, given a constant rate of speed of 600 mph.

Now according to the surveillance video the plane was crossing the camera's field of view on an inbound trajectory of approximately 35 - 45 degrees, so the apparent velocity of the plane across the camera's field of view will be approximately 1/3 less than that actually travelled by the plane along it's inbound trajectory.



Blue Dot: Camera Position

Red Line: Centerline of Field of View

Yellow Lines: Approx. Field of View Borders

Green Line: Approx. Path of AA77

Red Dot: Tail Position in Photograph

Pink Line: Angle from Camera to Point of Impact

Using the sky view and the surveillance camera views above we determine the approximate angles involved to assist us with determining how far the plane travelled in a single frame or 1/30th of a second. Now assuming the photo was not doctored and assuming this is AA77 (not a small commuter jet) partially hidden behind the traffic post, we will use the length of the 757-300 as our base measurement, which is 155 feet. It can been seen in the video frame that there are approximately 2 plane lengths (310 feet) remaining between the nose and the building face and 3 plane lengths (465 feet) between the tail and the building face.

In the following frame 1/30th of a second later, the tail of the plane has completely disappeared into the building and resulting explosion, so obviously the tail of the plane had to have travelled a minimum of 465 feet in 1/30th of a second. And keep in mind we are not factoring in the extra distance resulting from the tangent the flight path is on perpendicular to the camera angle or the deceleration that would suddenly occur as the plane struck the building. So remember, these figures are very conservative.

Now let's work backwards to see what the minimum approach velocity of AA77 would have to be in order for these two "undoctored", "back-to-back" video frames to be captured exactly as we have been told they were by government officials.

465 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13950 feet/second = 2.64 miles/second = 158.5 miles per minute = 9511.36 mph = 8263.5 kts. = Mach 12.48!!!!

Obviously this means we have been spending a lot more time in holding patterns than previously thought.

So who's still buyin' this? Put up you hands........ Anyone? Anyone???

Date: 3/15/02 7:19:43 AM Pacific Standard Time

According to "official Pentagon sources" the released surveillance camera frames cover 4/100s of a second. Now they do not specify if that is 4/100s of a second per frame (25 frames/sec.) or 4/100's of a second for all four frames (100 frames/sec.)? So let's re-examine the visual data we have to determine what the velocity of AA77 would be under these two additional "officially stated" scenarios.

Pentagon's claim assuming video ran at 25 frames/second: 465 feet traveled in 1/25th of a second = 11625 feet/sec. = 2.20 miles/sec. = 132.1 miles/min. = 7926.14 mph = 6886.30 kts. = Mach 10.43 (I suppose this will become the official excuse of why the interceptor's at Andrew's AFB couldn't catch it)

Pentagon's claim assuming video ran at 100 frames/second: 465 feet traveled in 1/100th of a second = 46500 feet/sec. = 8.8 miles/sec. = 528.4 miles/min. = 31704.54 mph = 27545.21 kts. = Mach 41.7 (At this speed it should have burned up in the atmosphere long before it hit the Pentagon)

Now if we assume the plane was not travelling in excess of Mach 1, (761.6 mph) but at it's rated speed of approximately 600 mph and the camera was operating at the standard 30 frames/sec. which would result in an image of the plane being captured every 29.3 feet travelled, then it becomes undeniably apparent that a minimum of 16 frames (1/2 of a second) of the video have been cut or edited from between the point the plane is last seen behind the traffic post and the next frame where the impact in complete and the explosion is already well under way. I personally suspect closer to 1- 2 seconds of the video have been removed. Obviously, our government and military are no longer trustworthy... or have become insanely inept. The fact that Pentagon and government officials would publically state that commercial airliners can fly at speeds in access of Mach 10, would suggest that all of our top brass and political leaders are in desperate need of padded cells and extensive electroshock therapy.

FLIGHT-77: IMPROVED PHOTO ANALYSIS
Date: 3/15/02 9:44:49 AM Pacific Standard Time

I've completed a more accurate and detailed analysis of the photographs. My initial estimate was that the tail of the plane was 465' from the impact point. Upon further examination it appears it could have been closer to 450' from the impact point, based on the following photo analysis.

The Pentagon measures 921.6 feet along each external face, half of this distance, marked on the diagram between the central corridor and the upper-left corner of the Pentagon (cyan) is 460.8' Take this base measurement as a scale and measure the distance from the rear of the plane in the photo (red dot), along the approximate path of the jet (dark-green line) to the impact point. The distance the tail travelled between frames (heavy red line) is approx. 450', which is just short of the originally estimated 465' or 3 lengths of a 757, which is 155'.



So, 450 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13500 feet/sec. = 2.55 miles/sec. = 153.4 miles/min. = 9204.54 mph = 7997 kts. = Mach 12.11

Even if you alter the path of the jet to a direct (90 degree) impact trajectory, (which introduces other unexplainable issues such as intact light-posts and trees, clearing the embankment, not to mention those anomalous hydro spools) you still end up with a final velocity exceeding Mach 6!

No matter how hard the military and government attempts to try to spin this obvious lie, they are still caught in CHECKMATE!

As citizens we have all sworn to uphold and defend OUR constitution again BOTH foreign AND DOMESTIC THREATS. We must extract an immediate, full and truthful disclosure of the many events of the past year. If our military and government continue to refuse to comply and account for their actions, then they represent the most critically dangerous domestic "terrorist" threat our constitution, nation and planet has ever faced in the history of mankind!

WAKE UP PEOPLE.... PLEASE!!!!!

Of course these poor fellows didn't then have the proof that these Fascist Criminal Rothschild ZioNAZIs



and their mass psychotic religious-socialist minions had cruelly edited out the frames showing their attack vehicle.



V

[agentbluescreen]

One other point that these very, very conservative geometric calculations also ignore is the fish-eye lens effect in which objects drawing closer always appear far bigger, especially when approaching the center field of view.

[phasma]

We are never gonna figure out what actually happened - instead they leave this ambiguous mess for us all to argue over . . .

Maye we ought to only concentrate on what we actually do know and what we can prove beyond doubt.

[mr anderson]

We are never gonna figure out what actually happened - instead they leave this ambiguous mess for us all to argue over . . .

Maye we ought to only concentrate on what we actually do know and what we can prove beyond doubt.

You mean: 'Where's the $2.3trillion? Why was the Pentagon hit in the first place? Why was there a stand-down order? Why hasn't the 84 surveillance tapes been released?'

ZOMG such logic! (really) 

[agentbluescreen]

We are never gonna figure out what actually happened - instead they leave this ambiguous mess for us all to argue over . . .

Maye we ought to only concentrate on what we actually do know and what we can prove beyond doubt.

Never say never!!

GUESS WHAT I FINALLY FOUND!

On this one saizdat911 Photobucket "Pentagon Crash Photos" album appears this one notable private statement:

The Greatest Lie Ever Sold

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic. Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ... The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. … With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. … As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."

I have long wondered where JimD's "Magic Tent" was locaed on the Pentagon lawn early that morning which was later photographed being hustled off back into the building from the edge of the lawn early that morning within 20 minutes after the supposed "757 CRASH" as depicted in this favorite suspicious photo of mine of the PEGASYS JPADS airdrop missile launcher.




Well LOOKIE LOOKIE WHAT'S UP COOKIE!

Kindly explain what the "blue tent thing" is on the highway, in the middle on the left hand side of this early morning aerial photograph, as shown in the middle of the road with a cop and angle-parked-truck barrier hastily erected in front of it, well before the wall even collapsed (within 20 minutes of the "crash")? ? ?



Did they "put up" this "blue tent" earlier that morning there on that highway, pointing that way as a "sunscreen" to protect them while they sat inside waiting to watch the "crash"?

I am about to rest my case

[Kilgore Trout]

An Idea for a new show:

"Uncovering the Ultimate Conspiracy with Agent BlueScreen."

"Examining the facts that even "theorists" won't touch."

[agentbluescreen]

An Idea for a new show:

"Uncovering the Ultimate Conspiracy with Agent BlueScreen."

"Examining the facts that even "theorists" won't touch."

Yeah well the obvious thing is the back of the highway sign, but just beyond it there is another

[Kilika]

I'm not seeing any "blue tent thing" in that last photo. Is the truck your refering to the one in the median, that looks like it might be a fire truck with one guy standing just to the left rear of the vehicle?

I guess I missed it, but what's the reference to the back of the highway sign? The only one visible in that photo is the one to the far left of the image and appears to have a stop sign hanging from it.