It's a bird...It's a plane...no it's .....

[PatriotMom]

It's disappearing shoes in the bottom of the frame. Pay close attention to the sidewalk as the video runs in this on camera #2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChuuQ-P0vkE&search=flight%2077

Their editing gets worse and worse all the time. If this is supposed to calm down the conspiracy theorists it isn't working here.
Peace Mom

[PatriotMom]

1. kick

[tridim]

2. That's just rubble from the explosion nt

[PatriotMom]

3. where did the other rubble go then and you can also see..

There was one piece of rubble and it stepped down and became two pieces. LOL also there is what appears to be another person on the far left side, shoes too.

[tridim]

4. It's security video - Usually they record one still frame per second

The rubble was rolling/bouncing inbetween each of the still frames.

[PatriotMom]

6. well you're guessing just like I am here,

It appears to me that there is a person that is blanked out all but the shoes the way the image moves is telling. I know for sure I do not see a plane in this video anywhere that I am certain of.

[tridim]

7. I think we're talking about different things

The rubble I'm talking about is in the bottom center of the screen and the far left.

There's another uncropped video that shows a security guy standing off to the side.

[magellan]

5. No, they cut back to a still of a particular frame that's already played

Look at 00:39 and then at 1:55, those are the same frames. They've gone back to the frame at 00:39 because that's where the guy says he sees a piece of the nosecone. Now THAT I don't see, but the two black pieces of debris are kosher.

I also don't see another person on the far left side. But I saw another longer version somewhere else today, the gov't site I think (someone pointed to it here) and there was a security guard who rushed into the shot to see what had happened. So with cropping it could be his shoes you see.

[smiley]

8. It looks like people standing on the left hand side.

... my mind playing tricks on me?:yoiks: ....ghostly

[PatriotMom]

9. it looks that way to me too

like they doctored the film.

[magellan]

10. Can you pause it where you see them and give me a time?

I'll take a look.

[mirandapriestly]

16. I see that too. It's obviously been manipulated

here is a page which describes the editing.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html

[uppityperson]

11. those shoes running in about 40 second place?

looks like a piece of debris, then it looks like the invisible person runs in from the left and stands with feet splayed out. Edited, after watching again, would need to see more to say if debris or ft, look like ft but could be debris, odd though.

[Lerkfish]

12. its hard to tell, but it sure looks like shoes with the person photoshoppe

photoshopped out.
once you've thought of that as an explanation, damn if it doesn't look like exactly that.
Add to the how the same two black pieces are together at one point and then at a opposite ends at another.
very odd. Certainly, there is nothing on this video to justify withholding it.

[jah123]

13. What's that thing in the air to the right?

Is that clouds, camera glare? At first I thought it was a plane or aircraft of some sort, but it remains there after the explosion.

[mirandapriestly]

14. Weird I never noticed the "shoes" before

They seem too far from the crash to be debris from it. Edited to say, don't know if they are really shoes, I'm not sure what they are. Although at 2:31 from a further perspective, you can see something small and black appear in that same area, that could be the same thing.

[DemInDistress]

15. stupid fox reporter said,"it skidded into the pentagon" lol..

where are the skid marks? Also, before the missile (Global Hawk) strikes the building one can easily see the pentagon is already collapsed. Look down the roof line just past center. Looks collapsed to me.
Anyone else?

[mirandapriestly]

17. Yeah, I see that , but I don't remember it

looking that way right after the strike. I thought it didn't collapse til awhile after.

[DemInDistress]

20. yes miranda.. the pentagon collapsed about 20-30 minutes later

and in this video I see a collapsed portion of the roof line just past center then we see "something" strike the building. To believe that's all the video of the crime is ludicrous. Another thing, where are the remains of flight 77? Seems odd they claim to have collected parts for evidence and its stored somewhere, why can't we see that?


Debunker's need to DEMAND the BFEE turn over all the documents, video's, photo's and all everyone to speak "under oath" but we know the guilty in power will not allow such a showdown.

Still trying to watch "Who Killed John O'Neill" dial up takes hours and still have only seen 30 minutes of the movie. Intriguing flick its the first I heard of it.

see you later..

[StealthyDragon]

18. It's really funny........

They didn't even get the background right!

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index4.htm

Nice try though! I'm sure the neobots will lap it up and beg for more!

[mirandapriestly]

19. great site, a small plane tailed by a C130..

They go to great lengths to show that according to the footage, a 757 was too big.

[StealthyDragon]

21. plus the missing buildings........

and the outlined shadows.

This shows that there are very few people within the neocon cabal that are in on this deception.

[mirandapriestly]

22. Amazing, but how do you think

that means they have fewer people in on it?

[StealthyDragon]

25. Don't you think they would have done a better job.....

It's not professional at all.

The first video they screwed up the date and left the shadows outlined and the buildings missing.

The second video isn't any better. Four years for this!

[Americus]

27. "Professional job" wasn't necessary for their purposes. The corp. media

told the masses that a VIDEO (sic) had been released showing AA FL77 crashing into the Pentagon, and that's the message the public absorbed.

The truth is probably that the perps want to preserve the right to "admit" one day that they now just aren't exactly certain WHAT, if anything, crashed into the Pentagon. A limited modified hangout lets them have it both ways. So, whenever something comes out that the public becomes aware of, maybe something about Ted Olson's wife and where she actually died e.g., then the perps will be able to say: "those tapes we released WERE authentic, but apparently when they were being readied for release to the public, a low-level employee accidentally made it look like there was more in the photos than there actually was, and then the media just ran with it, and it was too late to try and give a long explanation for why the photos didn't actually show AA FL 77 blah blah
blah."

[StealthyDragon]

32. I actually think........

that the video's real purpose was to mirror what was most likely told to Congress.

Rumsfeld's "slip of the tongue" was most likely the story Congress was fed.

But if those in Congress ever come to realize that even that story is a lie, well, then hell maybe paid.

[file83]

23. Did you even read the "video description" at YouTube? It's MANIPULATED.

This video has been manipulated to "feed the conspiracy theorists".

From the description:

Today the Pentagon released a second video showing the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. I do think a plane or some type of aircraft hit the Pentagon, but I have a hard time believing that it was a huge 757 airliner. I made this more as a joke just to feed the conspiracy theorists.

Come on guys, you have to be sharper than this.

[mirandapriestly]

24. Did he make this too?

http://www.broadcube.com/showVideo.aspx?video=f438fa47311146ad99db3494018792ab
it has the same imagery. I don't know what it is he "made". The one that is edited and manipulated is the Pentagon video. He say he didn't think something as big as a 757 hit the Pentagon, so he doesn't believe it either! Why is he calling other people conspiracy theorists?
When he says he "made" it he means he put the phrases in there every once and awhile. He DID NOT MANIPULATE the footage.
You know I think these pentagon videos may just be an attempt to create a distraction and a lot of no plane talk then they will come out and "debunk" it, but I think this video is real, except the signs.

[greyl]

28. "Come on guys, you have to be sharper than this."

I'd hope so.
More and more I tend to believe that there are several dingleberries here who like getting our goat. Of course, there are also a few who just aren't very sharp.

[mirandapriestly]

29. PERFECT EXAMPLE

I showed how the video was not manipulated or edited by the guy who made that tape, he just put up signs which is what he means by he "made" it. Now you are repeating that as though it is true and you know it isn't. The only one who edited the video WAS THE PENTAGON . Classic!

[file83]

30. You didn't catch the "manipulation"? I'll show you.

I have no idea why this idiot at YouTube altered the video, but it is altered.

The whole point of the video (from the comments in it) is to make it seem as if Fox News is trying to cover up the truth of the Pentagon video. For some reason we can't "see" the nose cone in the video. Why is that? Is it Fox News or is it some other reason?

Look for yourself...
Here's the "correct" video as copied and posted at YouTube by infowars.com from Fox News:





Here's the video as linked in the original post:

Notice anything peculiar?

The "manipulated" photo (bottom) has been enlarged and moved over to the right so that the nose cone frame is difficult to see. Compare it to the correct version (top) and notice how the whole frame is included (not chopped off on the right.

You can tell the bottom shot is enlarged because the left of the frame is further over to the left (left yellow line) than the top photo, however, the same bottom photo is also chopped off on the right, indicating it has been enlarged.

The cone in the top photo (hot pink line) indicates how much further over to the right the bottom photo is. Also notice where how the Fox News graphics don't line up (turqoise and yellow lines on the right).



So, yeah, it's manipulated. Why? My guess - it's obvious that the intent was to lure "conspiracy theorists" (his words, not mine) just for his own amusement.

[mirandapriestly]

31. none of us were talking about the nose cone though

we've already seen the nose cone. I wish this particular video wasn't used, but no one here thought there was no nose cone and the rest of the video is real, and it does look like there is some interesting stuff going on. Now certain types are going to go on and on about using "altered videos". Oh well, thanks for being so observant, but I don't think anyone fell for what he did.
The thing is I think this whole video thing is propably a scam to be debunked in the future anyway....

[mogster]

26. Imagine - Judicial Watch fighting for several years to get released

footage that really don't show anything, and even footage that's shown before.

And Judicial Watch is a rightwing programme.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1212051

Look at what they've managed before:

The following are just a few of Judicial Watch's public education victories.

v JW's Media Campaign Against Hillary Pays Off!

v Judicial Watch Exposes Border Patrol Scandal

v JW Proves George Bush Won Florida Election 2000

http://www.judicialwatch.org/veducate.shtml

If these people says Bush won the 2000 election, well, then Bush won the 2000 election. How can you even question these people? :shrug: They're obviously fair and balanced.