rare 9/11 footage, how was this unseen for so long?

[Las Vegas]

With color enhancement:



This is all new to me, and I'm just now getting into it.  Any comment or anything at all which causes someone to feel I'm straying from the truth, I'd like to know about it.

[Las Vegas]

^ That is from the video we've seen, btw, and it is two images.  We are familiar with the whitish "object" from earlier in the thread.

[Las Vegas]

That 911review picture is trying to show an angle of travel based upon an assumed movement of the whitish blur -- as though it is a solid object which would go on to hit the building.  That is incredible when you realize it is the standard belief, and what you'll find when you look for information.

[Las Vegas]

Everyone has seen that overhead video, including a few times in this thread.  Here is the counter to that.

[OzmO]

Everyone has seen that overhead video, including a few times in this thread.  Here is the counter to that.

I don't think a CT'er intends to deceive.  So i disagree when the vid says deception is the truther way.

I think a CT'er makes up his/her mind that 9/11 was an inside job and then only "sees" things that support that belief while ignoring actual evidence.

Its human nature to first adopt a theory and then seek out and pay attention to only things that support that theory.

What appears deceptive, is the spin used to convince other people.  For example that Bush video about explosives or the "19 goat shepherds quip".  Both are completely inaccurate but are use to persuade someone to believe in a CT.

Then the CT'er gets wrapped up in the spin (mildly brainwashed) and no longer can objectively see things for what they are, will not address previous false assumptions and create a broader web of fantastical explanations to validate their CT.  

If there was any legitimate evidence of a 9/11 inside job, there would be far more people denouncing the the official story, other countries would be calling BS on it, and funding would be made available from those to gain the most from exposing it to force legal action to investigate.

Why don't we see that happening?  Because, up to now, there is nothing there.  

[Las Vegas]

I don't think a CT'er intends to deceive.  So i disagree when the vid says deception is the truther way.

I think a CT'er makes up his/her mind that 9/11 was an inside job and then only "sees" things that support that belief while ignoring actual evidence.

Its human nature to first adopt a theory and then seek out and pay attention to only things that support that theory.

What gets deceptive, it was spin is used to convince other people.  For example that Bush video about explosives or the "19 goat shepherds quip".  Both are completely inaccurate but are use to persuade someone to believe in a CT.

Then the CT'er gets wrapped up in the spin (mildly brainwashed) and no longer can objectively see things for what they are, will not address previous false assumptions and create a broader web of fantastical explanations to validate their CT.   

If there was any legitimate evidence of a 9/11 inside job, there would be far more people denouncing the the official story, other countries would be calling BS on it, and funding would be made available from those to gain the most from exposing it to force legal action to investigate.

Why don't we see that happening?  Because, up to now, there is nothing there. 

Yes, the video is done in the typical fashion of trying to lump everything together.  And there's nothing in it to say that IT isn't falsified.

I didn't believe the original was accurate to begin with, though, because the last thing anyone would do (if wanting to present it properly) is to cut out the part after, which should show all the activity responding to the hit.

[Las Vegas]

If the Saudis ever get their worthless asses dragged into it, maybe it will become interesting.

[OzmO]

Yes, the video is done in the typical fashion of trying to lump everything together.  And there's nothing in it to say that IT isn't falsified.

I didn't believe the original was accurate to begin with, though, because the last thing anyone would do (if wanting to present it properly) is to cut out the part after, which should show all the activity responding to the hit.

I really don't know.  I am not a video expert, but i do have working skills in video editing.  I might be able to spot an altered video only because i know how to alter them.  but i am not sure, because i have never tried to examine one that was.  IMO the video (not the one you just posted) is moot either way.  Its too grainy and low res.  The evidence of a flight 77 hitting the pentagon is beyond substantial.  The evidence for a missile hitting the pentagon is based on false logic, false assumptions (planes cant fly that way, too little debris etc.), and rhetoric.  

[OzmO]

If the Saudis ever get their worthless asses dragged into it, maybe it will become interesting.

That's what a second investigation would reveal if there is anything to it.

[Las Vegas]

I really don't know.  I am not a video expert, but i do have working skills in video editing.  IMO the video (not the one you just posted) is moot either way.  Its too grainy and low res.  The evidence of a flight 77 hitting the pentagon is beyond substantial.  The evidence for a missile hitting the pentagon is based on false logic, false assumptions (planes cant fly that way, too little debris etc.), and rhetoric.  

Do you mean the one that the plane image is brought out from?

[OzmO]

Do you mean the one that the plane image is brought out from?

nah this one:

Good web site for 9/11 isn't it?

[Las Vegas]

nah this one:

Good web site for 9/11 isn't it?

Yes, I really like History Commons.  It's a good place to check first for information, to see what claims are out there (newspaper articles or broadcast transcripts or whatever).

Btw, I believe the Pentagon claims that is the tail.

[Las Vegas]

I notice both show :19, too.

[OzmO]

I notice both show :19, too.

yeah, typically a video time code now a days looks like this:   00;00;09;22

that would be 9 seconds, 22nd frame.  that time code isn't what is used these days.

I looked at a couple youtube vids of it and there wasn't a time code on them.  It looks like it was added to the images, unless there is another version out there or the actual unaltered file where the camera displays the timecode on the video.

[Las Vegas]

yeah, typically a video time code now a days looks like this:   00;00;09;22

that would be 9 seconds, 22nd frame.  that time code isn't what is used these days.

I looked at a couple youtube vids of it and there wasn't a time code on them.  It looks like it was added to the images, unless there is another version out there or the actual unaltered file where the camera displays the timecode on the video.

I think those above may be from the original "five frames" and that they did include those stamps and labels.  But will confirm.

Another funny thing related to this, is that I just read a claim to say the released videos are actually 2fps.  So maybe that explains it.

[OzmO]

I think those above may be from the original "five frames" and that they did include those stamps and labels.  But will confirm.

Another funny thing related to this, is that I just read a claim to say the released videos are actually 2fps.  So maybe that explains it.

2fps?  yikes.  Typical 1080p is 29.97 or 30 fps.

But that's a 2001 security cam, so...

[Las Vegas]

2fps?  yikes.  Typical 1080p is 29.97 or 30 fps.

But that's a 2001 security cam, so...

Yeah, that's the thing.  A link to "International Skeptics" posted by Be There gave the claimed run-down of that, and it said 30 (29.97, I believe you're right, being based on 60 fields).

[Las Vegas]

What information can be had by watching the car pass in front of the camera?

[M4tad0r]

I don't think a CT'er intends to deceive.  So i disagree when the vid says deception is the truther way.

I think a CT'er makes up his/her mind that 9/11 was an inside job and then only "sees" things that support that belief while ignoring actual evidence.

Its human nature to first adopt a theory and then seek out and pay attention to only things that support that theory.

What appears deceptive, is the spin used to convince other people.  For example that Bush video about explosives or the "19 goat shepherds quip".  Both are completely inaccurate but are use to persuade someone to believe in a CT.

Then the CT'er gets wrapped up in the spin (mildly brainwashed) and no longer can objectively see things for what they are, will not address previous false assumptions and create a broader web of fantastical explanations to validate their CT.  

If there was any legitimate evidence of a 9/11 inside job, there would be far more people denouncing the the official story, other countries would be calling BS on it, and funding would be made available from those to gain the most from exposing it to force legal action to investigate.

Why don't we see that happening?  Because, up to now, there is nothing there.  

You just can't let it go, eh? The 19 shepherds was a metaphor to troll you, but of course, as the imbecile that you are, you could not get it, and  now you try to pass it as truth.

The Bush video, trolling you again, do you really think the President of the United States was going to implicate himself and get away with it? Imbecile what kind are you?

There is legitimate evidence of 9/11 being an inside job, why don't you address anything I put up on page 45 of this thread? Watch the videos, follow the links, read the material.

You are nothing but a Government Dick Rider Shill with the logic of an imbecile with great retardation.

Serious question, how much is the goverment paying you these days? It show the kind of looser you are, can't find work, trolling a 15 year old in Getbig during the day, trying to debunk and obscure CT's lol.

47 pages later and you still at it, never debunking anything, never explaining anything, insulting, degrading, lying.

 First you said you had study 9/11 for 9 years and then you have debunking CT's for 9 years, which is it?

Keep at it imbecile, owning you, my business.  

[M4tad0r]

What information can be had by watching the car pass in front of the camera?

Vegas, don't bother, he's just trolling you, after page 45, this thread should be lock down really, anything and everything there is to know is in page 45 of this thread, watch the videos, follow the link, believe what you want.

Everything is explained, now a real investigation is all there is left to do so that evidence and testimony could come together in a court of law. After that everything could be put down to rest.

[OzmO]

You just can't let it go, eh? The 19 shepherds was a metaphor to troll you, but of course, as the imbecile you are could not get it, and  now try to pass it as truth.

If there was any truth to a 9/11 CT you wouldn't have to use a metaphor.  weak sauce lol  (back peddle)

The Bush video, trolling you again, do you really think the President of the United States was going to implicate himself and get away with it? Imbecile what kind are you?

really?  This is what you posted:

9/11: Bush Admits “Explosives” Used At World Trade Center (Video)

Start watching at 0:37 seconds for a in your face revelation from non other than our own president. How you like them apples now?

All of you goverment shill defenders are OWNED!!!

So now you are back peddling?   HAHAHAHAH  weak sauce lol

There is legitimate evidence of 9/11 being an inside job, why don't you address anything I put up on page 45 of this thread? Watch the videos, follow the links, read the material.

Haven't seen it yet.  And i am sure anything you have posted is total crap.  and if I show it to be, you'll just claim you were trolling or using a metaphor?

Weak sauce lol

Well 2 down.

Like i said, i don't really care what you do.  You are one of the most stupid people i have ever dealt with regarding CT's.  Your maturity level is that of a low self esteem 15 year old boy barricaded in his mom's basement.

[Las Vegas]

The camera attempts to keep a static background, too.  So, by looking at the area the plane image has been extracted from, I'm having a difficult time believing this isn't it.  Look at the angle of the tail, for instance, remembering that the camera seeks a static background.

But the question as to why it has remained an unknown makes it almost unbelievable, and causes me to think there's something to show it as false.

[OzmO]

The camera attempts to keep a static background, too.  So, by looking at the area the plane image has been extracted from, I'm having a difficult time believing this isn't it.  Look at the angle of the tail, for instance, remembering that the camera seeks a static background.

But the question as to why it has remained an unknown makes it almost unbelievable, and causes me to think there's something to show it as false.

Not sure what you mean here.

It looks like camera is set up to watch that driveway, not the background

[Las Vegas]

Not sure what you mean here.

It looks like camera is set up to watch that driveway, not the background

Yes, that is exactly it (what I mean).

Will find that run-down again, and would like your opinion on it.

[Las Vegas]

The camera attempts to keep a static background, too.  So, by looking at the area the plane image has been extracted from, I'm having a difficult time believing this isn't it.  Look at the angle of the tail, for instance, remembering that the camera seeks a static background.

But the question as to why it has remained an unknown makes it almost unbelievable, and causes me to think there's something to show it as false.

Btw, this says nothing of the question asking what else it could possibly be, doing what it is doing at that exact instant in that particular place.