i'd like this debunked

[water_bender]

an analysis of the doubletree video released. this analysis centers on the video which can also be downloaded from flight77.info/doubletree.mpg.

this video has elements of an alteration. the time period just after the impact has ben tampered with in some way. i had to slow the video down to a x16 reduction in viewing speed, and then at the target areas i went through the film frame by frame, second by second.... im going to give the references in two formats smpte time non-drop (29.97 fps) and also by the timecode stamped on the video. when looking at the video use the time code for absolute accuracy and only use the time stamp as a general reference. all of the folowing evaluations were derived using the full length video i got from flight77.info and using sony vegas 7.0 and adobe premiere pro 2.0. the two time values differ in notation though appear similar --- smpte is 00:00:00 being min:sec:frames and the time stamp is in standard time 00:00:00 being hrs:min:sec

format of the following table is as such :
smpt at start time stamp at start description of event
smpte at end[e] time stamp at end[e] length in smpte[l] length of time stamp[l]
(00:00:00 00:00:00 description 00:00:00[e] 00:00:00[e] 00:00:00[l] 00:00:00[l])

9:30:25 9:32:43 time stamp that is switched to later in vid.
9:33:10 9:32:46 time stamp that is switched to later in vid.


11:17:00 9:34:35 camera stops its regular up and down movement
11:29:30 9:34:47
0:12:29 0:00:12

11:17:00 9:34:35 man in same running/walking/moving position for 4 seconds
11:20:24 9:34:39
0:03:24 0:00:04

11:21:00 9:34:39 man in stationary position
11:26:04 9:34:44
0:05:04 0:00:05

11:24:10 9:34:42 at the 42-> 43 time change time becomes 32:43 then to 34:44
​

11:25:18 9:34:44
0:01:08 0:00:02

11:26:25 9:34:44 at the 44->45 time change time becomes 32:46 then to 34:47
​

11:27:14 9:34:47
0:00:49 0:00:03

11:29:25 9:34:47 3 second advance on video
11:29:29 9:34:50
0:00:04 0:00:03

11:17:00 9:34:35 total time in question
11:29:29 9:34:50
0:12:29 0:00:15



until 11:17:00 the camera maintains a regular up and down shift of movement 1 cycle of up/down every 15-20 frames thats up once and down once every :00:00:20. during the segment in question this up/down movement stops for a total of 12 seconds and 29 frames aka 13 seconds in real time and 15 seconds according to the time stamp. also odd are the mans movements. he is shown in a movement stance for 3 seconds 24 frames (00:03:24) [3.83sec] and a unmoving stance for 5 seconds 4 frames (00:03:04) [5.17 sec]. these two stances are approx. 25 feet from each other (city zoning states that the standard parking space is 7.5 feet and man is approx 3.5 apart in two stances). there is no tranistional frame with him in between, and the only transistion at all between the stances is a fade in and a fade out. when he disappears from the clip he again simple fades away.


anyone have an explanation as to why it would be altered?

 

[Gravy]

Greetings, water_bender.

there is no tranistional frame with him in between, and the only transistion at all between the stances is a fade in and a fade out. when he disappears from the clip he again simple fades away.

Our reptilian overlords have that capability.

 

[The Doc]

I didn't have time to read your whole post, so excuse me if I have missed the point. I will read it in its entirety tonight.

If you are asking why the video has been altered around the man we can see in the clip, this is one of the reasons the video was delayed. It is FBI policy to censor ID's of people who are not involved in the crime who can be seen on the surveillance tape. Thus the blurring in the gas station video. This "altering" may have been part of an effort to censor this man's ID. I am not 100% sure though so don't quote me on that.

I am only speculating here but I'll give it a full read when I get home tonight.

That and he may very well be a reptillian overlord that Gravy speaks of.

 

[water_bender]

the alterations dont appear to be in an effort to conceal the mans id. and if they did conceal his id then he would be the only one to be concealed out of dozens of others. it appears more like a segment of earlier video is overlaid over the segment in question. im wondering if anyone is first going to deny the film was altered.then i want to know why the clip would have been altered.

 

[solidslade]

the alterations dont appear to be in an effort to conceal the mans id. and if they did conceal his id then he would be the only one to be concealed out of dozens of others. it appears more like a segment of earlier video is overlaid over the segment in question. im wondering if anyone is first going to deny the film was altered.then i want to know why the clip would have been altered.

Regardless of whatever the video feed has, what implications are you making anyway?

Proper Implication :

This video shows proof of tampering, therefore, Subject A has tampered the video for the purpose of Objective B.

Stoopid Implication :

Why is it tampered? uuuh, hmm. uuuhm. Should I deny it? uuuhh uhm.

 

[water_bender]

the point here is that i dont think anyone can realistically argue for the case of it being untampered. which then leads us to the question of why was it altered. seriously i'd expect more from you guys, are you going to actually look at the video and analysis or just make side remarks that totally sidestep the point of the post.

 

[solidslade]

the point here is that i dont think anyone can realistically argue for the case of it being untampered. which then leads us to the question of why was it altered.

Well, what do you think the reason for the tampering is?


my guesses for "tampering" or whatever :

1. FBI needed to edit to protect identities, IDs and privacy.
2. Planet X
3. Bad Video Feed. Its a freaking Hotel, not exactly top notch security feed.
4. CTers are RUNNING OUT OF CRAP TO POST ON INTERNET FORUMS.

But, this isn't about my claims, its about your claims.
What do you think the reasons are?

seriously i'd expect more from you guys, are you going to actually look at the video and analysis or just make side remarks that totally sidestep the point of the post.

Actually, we've been waiting on you to make the claim.

We could care less with ambiguities.

State your claim, state your evidence, than we can discuss seriously.



Other than that :

HAIL MIGHTY REPTILIAN UBERLORDS @_@/

 

[water_bender]

the point of the post is for YOU to go through the analysis, which you obviously havent. i could make all sorts of implications but im not. wow. way to go with the critical thinking. you'd make an awesome addition to any laboratory in any college in this country, shouldnt you examine the film before you come up with any conclusions?

are you so inflamed that you instantly dismiss everything? you dont even know what my stance is on 9/11 so why the hell are you jumping to the conclusion i am a CTer? i'm presenting an example of obvious tampering and asking for an informed opinion. if you're incapable of doing so, then dont bother saying anything at all.

 

[solidslade]

an analysis of the doubletree video released. this analysis centers on the video which can also be downloaded from flight77.info/doubletree.mpg.

this video has elements of an alteration. the time period just after the impact has ben tampered with in some way. i had to slow the video down to a x16 reduction in viewing speed, and then at the target areas i went through the film frame by frame, second by second.... im going to give the references in two formats smpte time non-drop (29.97 fps) and also by the timecode stamped on the video. when looking at the video use the time code for absolute accuracy and only use the time stamp as a general reference. all of the folowing evaluations were derived using the full length video i got from flight77.info and using sony vegas 7.0 and adobe premiere pro 2.0. the two time values differ in notation though appear similar --- smpte is 00:00:00 being min:sec:frames and the time stamp is in standard time 00:00:00 being hrs:min:sec

format of the following table is as such :
smpt at start time stamp at start description of event
smpte at end[e] time stamp at end[e] length in smpte[l] length of time stamp[l]
(00:00:00 00:00:00 description 00:00:00[e] 00:00:00[e] 00:00:00[l] 00:00:00[l])

9:30:25 9:32:43 time stamp that is switched to later in vid.
9:33:10 9:32:46 time stamp that is switched to later in vid.


11:17:00 9:34:35 camera stops its regular up and down movement
11:29:30 9:34:47
0:12:29 0:00:12

11:17:00 9:34:35 man in same running/walking/moving position for 4 seconds
11:20:24 9:34:39
0:03:24 0:00:04

11:21:00 9:34:39 man in stationary position
11:26:04 9:34:44
0:05:04 0:00:05

11:24:10 9:34:42 at the 42-> 43 time change time becomes 32:43 then to 34:44
​

11:25:18 9:34:44
0:01:08 0:00:02

11:26:25 9:34:44 at the 44->45 time change time becomes 32:46 then to 34:47
​

11:27:14 9:34:47
0:00:49 0:00:03

11:29:25 9:34:47 3 second advance on video
11:29:29 9:34:50
0:00:04 0:00:03

11:17:00 9:34:35 total time in question
11:29:29 9:34:50
0:12:29 0:00:15



until 11:17:00 the camera maintains a regular up and down shift of movement 1 cycle of up/down every 15-20 frames thats up once and down once every :00:00:20. during the segment in question this up/down movement stops for a total of 12 seconds and 29 frames aka 13 seconds in real time and 15 seconds according to the time stamp. also odd are the mans movements. he is shown in a movement stance for 3 seconds 24 frames (00:03:24) [3.83sec] and a unmoving stance for 5 seconds 4 frames (00:03:04) [5.17 sec]. these two stances are approx. 25 feet from each other (city zoning states that the standard parking space is 7.5 feet and man is approx 3.5 apart in two stances). there is no tranistional frame with him in between, and the only transistion at all between the stances is a fade in and a fade out. when he disappears from the clip he again simple fades away.


anyone have an explanation as to why it would be altered?

Bad video feed.

Is this your analysis for "alteration"

Or do you mean "falsified"?

Huge difference.

I seen the video already by the way. including the "offending frames" in question.



Let's elaborate.


"If the video was altered for falsification, than time skips, video skips, invisible sprites and bad editing techniques will be present"

Timeskips video skips and bad editing are present.

Therefore this video has been altered for the purpose of falsification."


Is this what you are stating?

 

[personable]

Solidslade, it saddens me to say this but your posts on this thread remind me of a Patriotic True Believer.

Water Bender is asking for an explanation for the anomolies in the video - ANY explanation. It doesn't have to involve aliens, government spies, reptillian overlords or some such = it can be anything.

He doesn't know, but he would like to. Those questions CAN be asked without making an implication, can't they?

You, on the other hand, despite claiming to have already seen the video, appear willing to dismiss everything out of hand. You have ASSUMED he's making an implication and pressed him for it.



FWIW, I watched Gravy on that low budget show and was extremely impressed with the stance he took. He did not seek to defend his "camp", he masterfully exposed everything the loose change guys claimed to be either flawed or based on assumptions by using his own facts.

From that debate, I went from wondering if the loose change guys 'had something', to KNOWING they had nothing.

In your posts to water blender, I know that you don't want to believe the video was altered. But I don't care what you believe, I want to know the facts like any sceptic should.

To be a sceptic is not to simply deny everything or dismiss everything out of hand - if you want to do that there are plenty of Mormon churches that could use you out there. It's about the boring process of taking each piece of information on its merit and discussing it rationally. If you can't do that, you have no place calling yourself a sceptic, and no sceptic will be proud to have you on their team.

 

[solidslade]

Solidslade, it saddens me to say this but your posts on this thread remind me of a Patriotic True Believer.

Water Bender is asking for an explanation for the anomolies in the video - ANY explanation. It doesn't have to involve aliens, government spies, reptillian overlords or some such = it can be anything.

the word ANY and the concept ANY EXPLANATION includes "aliens, government spies, reptillian overlords or some such".

I didn't introduce the bounds of the discussion, I am merely executing them.


Patriotic True Believer?
Maybe youre in the wrong subforum, go back to politics or whatever.

He doesn't know, but he would like to. Those questions CAN be asked without making an implication, can't they?

Asking questions without making implications?

Whats the point of him asking questions than?

Is he scared of making wrong implications?

You, on the other hand, despite claiming to have already seen the video, appear willing to dismiss everything out of hand. You have ASSUMED he's making an implication and pressed him for it.

I've seen the video AND dismissed it after viewing the offending frames.

If you think I've made an error, Prove me wrong.

I demand people MAKE their implications, state their claims, and NOT dabble in ambiguities. Or else, what the hell is the point of internet forums like these?

In your posts to water blender, I know that you don't want to believe the video was altered. But I don't care what you believe, I want to know the facts like any sceptic should.

To be a sceptic is not to simply deny everything or dismiss everything out of hand - if you want to do that there are plenty of Mormon churches that could use you out there. It's about the boring process of taking each piece of information on its merit and discussing it rationally. If you can't do that, you have no place calling yourself a sceptic, and no sceptic will be proud to have you on their team.

Check your premises, Sir.

1. I'm not a "skeptic". Nor am I on their "team". Who's "They"? Who the hell are You?
2. I dismissed his "analysis" after watching the video and his lack of statements, implications or well rounded hypothesis. If you don't like it, go call your congressman. Or engage me.

 

[beachnut]

0:05:04 0:00:05
anyone have an explanation as to why it would be altered?

Where is your debunking?

What do you think?

Why do you think it? Do you have facts?

What is the frame rate of the security camera? (the video is not real time; I do not think it was 15 to 30 fps; think it is 1-5 fps

Who cares? The video does not prove anything anyway, it does show a big fire from 77 crashing into the pentagon where all souls on board were lost! Where the FDR was found.

Why is this video good for anything?

It only backs up the fact 77 hit the building by showing an exploding aircraft impact fire. Looks just like a plane crash at high speed, and JetA1 fuel explosion set off by engine breaking apart with 700 decree core temperature; there for the fuel auto ignition temperature of 450 C was met, and an fuel air explosion took place. (I have to check my numbers and get back to you on exact figures)

Looks like an aircraft fuel fire explosion was captured in the direction of the Pentagon; looks like people all the way at the doubletree were upset and went running around.

I do not think any one at the FBI or NTSB, or at Justice care what a few fringe idiots think the tape means; so good luck finding our what version we have, what may have been done to protect people etc.

Most rational people know flight 77 crashed and the people were recovered.

The CT truth movement is about as morally viable as the NAZI movement in the 30s. Just like most propaganda machines a few want to be famous idiots are misleading numbers of low IQ followers who have failed to realize there is no viable truth story; No single truth story; just beam weapons, bombs, no planes, drones, remote control, thermite, nukes, missiles, etc.

Why are you worried about the video?

What is your theory?

And what facts do you have? Will this change anything about the way 9/11 happened?

 

[solidslade]

Where is your debunking?

What do you think?

Why do you think it? Do you have facts?

What is the frame rate of the security camera? (the video is not real time; I do not think it was 15 to 30 fps; think it is 1-5 fps

Who cares? The video does not prove anything anyway, it does show a big fire from 77 crashing into the pentagon where all souls on board were lost! Where the FDR was found.

Why is this video good for anything?

It only backs up the fact 77 hit the building by showing an exploding aircraft impact fire. Looks just like a plane crash at high speed, and JetA1 fuel explosion set off by engine breaking apart with 700 decree core temperature; there for the fuel auto ignition temperature of 450 C was met, and an fuel air explosion took place. (I have to check my numbers and get back to you on exact figures)

Looks like an aircraft fuel fire explosion was captured in the direction of the Pentagon; looks like people all the way at the doubletree were upset and went running around.

I do not think any one at the FBI or NTSB, or at Justice care what a few fringe idiots think the tape means; so good luck finding our what version we have, what may have been done to protect people etc.

Most rational people know flight 77 crashed and the people were recovered.

The CT truth movement is about as morally viable as the NAZI movement in the 30s. Just like most propaganda machines a few want to be famous idiots are misleading numbers of low IQ followers who have failed to realize there is no viable truth story; No single truth story; just beam weapons, bombs, no planes, drones, remote control, thermite, nukes, missiles, etc.

Why are you worried about the video?

What is your theory?

And what facts do you have? Will this change anything about the way 9/11 happened?

SPACE BORNE

REPTILIAN

UBERLORDs.


ALL HAIL! @_@/

 

[chacal]

water bender

As for the running man that appears frozen some time after the explosion (9:34:35 and 9:34:39 as you pointed out), pauses like that are present at other points of the video aswell, infact they are quite common.

The timestamp seems also very irregular. I don't know the technical reasons for this, but you should ask someone who's an expert on time lapse recorders. Also notice how there's occasionally some other cameras footage recorded over this cameras "slot on the tape" This is quite common with time lapse recorders for they usually record multiple camera feeds on one VHS tape that's been used many times before.

And merry christmas everybody

 

[personable]

the word ANY and the concept ANY EXPLANATION includes "aliens, government spies, reptillian overlords or some such".

It can include them, but it doesn't have to. Do you understand?

I didn't introduce the bounds of the discussion, I am merely executing them.

You are misrepresenting them.

Patriotic True Believer?
Maybe youre in the wrong subforum, go back to politics or whatever.



Asking questions without making implications?

Whats the point of him asking questions than?

Is he scared of making wrong implications?

One can ask questions without making implications. The purpose is to find out more about a subject.

Maybe he doesn't believe in CT, but he's noticed this anomoly and wants to know what the explanation is in case a CT asks him about it.

I've seen the video AND dismissed it after viewing the offending frames.

If you think I've made an error, Prove me wrong.

Your diagnosis? Bad video feed. That's so vague it's meaningless.

I demand people MAKE their implications, state their claims, and NOT dabble in ambiguities. Or else, what the hell is the point of internet forums like these?

Items can be discussed rationally on internet forums without demanding wild accusations to accompany them.

Check your premises, Sir.

1. I'm not a "skeptic". Nor am I on their "team". Who's "They"? Who the hell are You?
2. I dismissed his "analysis" after watching the video and his lack of statements, implications or well rounded hypothesis. If you don't like it, go call your congressman. Or engage me.

1. That much is clear. You appear to be in the True believer camp. Like the CT, but with contrary views.

2. Your analysis doesn't impress me, so I will disregard it and remain open to discussion until a more critical thinker can offer an explanation.

 

[solidslade]

It can include them, but it doesn't have to. Do you understand?

Elaborate.

please explain the FULL logical implication of saying of the concept "ANY explanation".

or am I not understanding New-Age Hippie Talk?

You are misrepresenting them.

How can I misrepresent a group I am not part of?

"George Patton is an American.
George Patton is not a Nazi.
George Patton is misrepresenting the Nazis."

One can ask questions without making implications. The purpose is to find out more about a subject.

Maybe he doesn't believe in CT, but he's noticed this anomoly and wants to know what the explanation is in case a CT asks him about it.

We've given him our explanations. Bad Video feed. Bad quality. whatever. It's time for him to put forth what he thinks.

Your diagnosis? Bad video feed. That's so vague it's meaningless.

It is bad video feed.
see for yourself.

Your statement is so crude, its not worth engaging.

Items can be discussed rationally on internet forums without demanding wild accusations to accompany them.

They can be discussed rationally.However, why should we deny everyones freedom of speech, which includes accusing people of being alleged supporters of the All Powerful Reptilian Uberlords video editing techniques?

1. That much is clear. You appear to be in the True believer camp. Like the CT, but with contrary views.

2. Your analysis doesn't impress me, so I will disregard it and remain open to discussion until a more critical thinker can offer an explanation.

Oh I'm sorry. I'm supposed to impress you or something?


*smells a dirty dirty sock*

 

[PerryLogan]

Reptoid 101

Here's a logical debunking.

The clip proves that there is no conspiracy involved, because no conspirator in his right mind would release an obviously-doctored video. How's that?

The perpetrators of a secret conspiracy would either release a video in which the doctoring was perfectly concealed...or they would release nothing at all.

They teach you that in Reptoid 101: Never plant evidence that gives the plot away. It's really basic stuff.

 

[solidslade]

Here's a logical debunking.

The clip proves that there is no conspiracy involved, because no conspirator in his right mind would release an obviously-doctored video. How's that?

The perpetrators of a secret conspiracy would either release a video in which the doctoring was perfectly concealed...or they would release nothing at all.

They teach you that in Reptoid 101: Never plant evidence that gives the plot away. It's really basic stuff.

Yeah I was at that seminar. Very good stuff Perry.

You shoulda seen the new Star Wars Beams Weapons. you can activate them with IPods now Q_Q;

 

[Gravy]

water_bender,

I made a joke of your original post because of the title you chose:

"i'd like this debunked"

No, water_bender, you want to play a game. If you actually wanted a professional analysis of your claims, you'd send the video (preferably as close as possible to the original) to...a professional!

But you don't want that. You want to have an argument on a website.

Take a hike. You'll feel much better for doing so.

When you come back from your walk, we can discuss who stole your shift key.

 

[The Doc]

When you come back from your walk, we can discuss who stole your shift key.

Oh! Snaaap!

True though. Try an extension to your browser that provides a spell checker. Hell, even go to www.spellcheck.net

Saves us the seizure when we try to read through your posts and it will get you some more respect.