Congressman Walter Jones Exposes Massive 9/11 Conspiracy [who financed hijackers?]

[TheGrinch]

That's correct. A video like that could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not rob the bank.

Dude, stop being a contrarian. He should have just left it to the fact that the most-heavily guarded building in the world undoubtedly has footage of the plane hitting. Yet they went around confiscating videos from surrounding businesses, and only produce this video that doesn't show a plane and may even be doctored.

Coastie made a mistake of making claims, when he should have just left it to the fact that the government hasn't proven their claim, despite them clearly having the resources to do so.

 

[PRB]

Yes I am a truther, as in I don't think we've been told anywhere close to the truth of what really happened that day, there are an abundance of reasons why it couldn't have gone down how they said it did, but conspiracy theorist not so much. However, neither are the vast majority of truthers who just want answers.

If you like your answer, you can keep it. By answer, you mean answer that'll satisfy your hyperskepticism and denial.

Afterall it is the official story making these outrageous claims. Just because some people like the Loose Changers want to act like they have it all figured out (which they can't, when there are still simply too many unkowns that we can't know, when all of this information remains private), does not mean you can just dismiss the questions, discrepencies and outright lies that msot truthers question.

So point me to somebody who accurately and fairly represnets truthers.

Back on topic, I think this is just one more piece that shows that the 9/11 plot goes much deeper than the fairy-tale we've been told. I don't have to have all the answers to see that.

Do you have a less outrageous hypothesis which you'd like to test and explain?

 

[PRB]

Coastie made a mistake of making claims, when he should have just left it to the fact that the government hasn't proven their claim, despite them clearly having the resources to do so.

It's called being fair, admitting what you believe, and holding yourself to the same questions you hold official story to. Learn that sometime. Any idiot can ask questions, but if you want to be taken seriously, try actually setting a rule for what you're looking for, you might get something.

 

[erowe1]

Coastie made a mistake of making claims

Thus far, Coastie is still unwilling to concede that, which supports the initial response I made about exaggerating what was in that video.

 

[coastie]

That's not what you said that I took issue with.

What you said was that it proved that no plane hit the Pentagon.

What we're left with here are these two photographs that have things in them that we can't identify. We have been given no reason to believe that there ought to be a plane in either of these pictures, such that the absence of a plane from the pictures proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.

They are not "photographs", they are video frames. And no, they are not the same thing. "...Been given no reason to believe..." Have you gone insane, or has some giant stupid bomb landed on your head?

These two VIDEOS were presented as EVIDENCE, by the government(DOD), that Flight 77 went into the Pentagon. That's not a reason to believe there should be a plane there??? Because that's damn sure what they claimed.

And no, what we're left with is two still FRAMES of a video that should be showing a 757 in them - they do not.


EDIT: And I'm not exaggerating - that was my OPINION. Last I checked, we're not sitting in a courtroom. Where's is the reasonable doubt you're clinging to?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

From infowars, May 2006:

Scott Bingham of www.flight77.info/ has stated on his website:

"No one can say for sure why the FBI is reluctant to release the videos. it could just be a matter of policy, or it could have to do - as many suspect - with the notion that keeping the videos from the public is helping to fuel wild conspiracy theories. these theories - that no 757 hit the pentagon - helps discredit the 9/11 truth movement in general, and keeps people's focus away from such topics as WTC building 7."

We are in agreement with Mr Bingham. For over four years we at Infowars and Prisonplanet have remained neutral on the subject of flight 77, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.

The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11. At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.

We need to concentrate on the concrete facts that point towards a cover up of complicity and not on wild speculation that will only hinder the movement as a whole.

In other words, stick with facts, not interpretation of facts.

 

[erowe1]

They are not "photographs", they are video frames.

Frames that are shot once per second. What's the difference between that and photographs. And why the insistence on calling them videos? Is it because calling them videos makes it easier to pretend that we should expect to see a plane in one of the frames?

 

[erowe1]

These two VIDEOS were presented as EVIDENCE, by the government(DOD), that Flight 77 went into the Pentagon.

That's interesting and all. But everything I've said has been in response to the video you presented, and claimed that it proved beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon.

I actually don't know anything about what the government ever said those pictures proved. The video itself that you linked also doesn't get into whether the government ever said they were evidence of anything.

I am not saying that they are proof that a plane hit the Pentagon. I am only saying that they are not proof that one didn't.

 

[erowe1]

And no, what we're left with is two still FRAMES of a video that should be showing a 757 in them

What's your basis for asserting that they should show a 757?

N.B. the video you linked never demonstrates that they should show a 757.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Frames that are shot once per second. What's the difference between that and photographs. And why the insistence on calling them videos? Is it because calling them videos makes it easier to pretend that we should expect to see a plane in one of the frames?

It's because a video is a timed sequence of photos. That's all any video is (until it is edited). There are different "persistence" from one frame to another depending on the quality and setting of the video camera (lens open time per frame).

The difference between a simple photo (even a series of photos) and a frame of a video is the sequencing in known time (fps). But, you probably know that. It's obfuscation.

 

[TheGrinch]

It's called being fair, admitting what you believe, and holding yourself to the same questions you hold official story to. Learn that sometime. Any idiot can ask questions, but if you want to be taken seriously, try actually setting a rule for what you're looking for, you might get something.

That's stupid. What I believe is filled with unknowns and could change if more information comes out (such as Saudi involvement), what they know is full of secret information they haven't shared with us (such as Saudi involvement). So forgive me for holding those who conducted an official "investigation" full of gaping holes and discrepencies to a higher standard.

 

[coastie]

Frames that are shot once per second. What's the difference between that and photographs. And why the insistence on calling them videos? Is it because calling them videos makes it easier to pretend that we should expect to see a plane in one of the frames?

You're impossible. Admit you didn't even watch the video, and go the fuck away.

The DOD referred to them as videos. The government referred to them as videos. The video forensics expert that analyzed the VIDEOS was pretty sure they were VIDEOS.

The DOD camera syncing system thinks they are videos. Your ignorance of all this proves nothing, other than you're willing to use that ignorance to prove a point(of which, you still haven't).

Maybe that's why I insist on calling them videos - because that's exactly what they fucking are. Your ignorance of the difference between a photograph and a video frame does not make you right. Camera's(photographs) aren't specified in frames per second. They shoot much faster than that, as you don't have to hold your camera still for a (full) second to take a picture.

 

[TheGrinch]

Frames that are shot once per second. What's the difference between that and photographs. And why the insistence on calling them videos? Is it because calling them videos makes it easier to pretend that we should expect to see a plane in one of the frames?

A basic frame rate on a basic camcorder is at least 20/30fps. It is safe to assume the Pentagons cameras operate with at least this much for the most heavily guarded building in the world.

The real question is, why didn't they? Why the need to confiscate the proof they undoubtedly have about what really happened?

You wanna know why conspiracy theories exist, they exist because of secrecy.

 

[coastie]

A basic frame rate on a basic camcorder is at least 20/30fps. It is safe to assume the Pentagons cameras operate with at least this much for the most heavily guarded building in the world.

No, its not safe to assume that, as this particular video was shot at 1 fps. The other 83 missing videos, however, probably did.

 

[erowe1]

A basic frame rate on a basic camcorder is at least 20/30fps. It is safe to assume the Pentagons cameras operate with at least this much for the most heavily guarded building in the world.

The real question is, why didn't they?

Great question. Am I supposed to have an answer? I didn't make a bold assertion about what the video that Coastie presented proved.

Does the government have other videos that do conclusively show that a 757 hit the Pentagon? I don't know.

Does the government have other videos that conclusively show that something else caused the damage to the Pentagon? I don't know. (Actually, this is being generous. I'm pretty sure they don't.)

All I claim to know, as far as this thread is concerned, is that the video Coastie presented does not prove that no plane hit the Pentagon.

 

[otherone]

You wanna know why conspiracy theories exist, they exist because of secrecy.

Theories exist because the government has had conspiracies exposed in the past. It would be naive to believe they no longer exist.

 

[erowe1]

It's because a video is a timed sequence of photos. That's all any video is (until it is edited).

That's what I thought.

So there's no difference between one of these frames of a video that shoots one frame per second and a photograph from a camera that took one picture per second.

 

[TheGrinch]

Theories exist because the government has had conspiracies exposed in the past. It would be naive to believe they no longer exist.

Well yes, that too, but I think that's more the justification for skepticism, as the govenrment has lsot any benefit of the doubt they might have once had.

But I think the need to theorize is just as much due to the fact that we're not being told everything and in many cases being lied to. It's human nature to want to connect the dots, even if sometimes that might lead to an unprovable theory (based on available information anyway).

Thus, I prefer to continue to poke holes in their claims rather than act like I have all the answers and the burden of proof is on me. That is not the role of an investigator, it's to question claims.

 

[erowe1]

Your ignorance of the difference between a photograph and a video frame does not make you right. Camera's(photographs) aren't specified in frames per second. They shoot much faster than that, as you don't have to hold your camera still for a (full) second to take a picture.

I don't follow what you're saying? You can't mean that in capturing each of these 1-per-second video frames these cameras actually had full one-second exposures, can you? The pictures of the cars passing through don't seem to allow that. Each frame had to be a quick single photograph, with one photograph being taken each second. I still don't see why it makes a difference whether you call it one photograph per second and a video of one frame per second.

 

[erowe1]

Well yes, that too, but I think that's more the justification for skepticism, as the govenrment has lsot any benefit of the doubt they might have once had.

I don't have any problem with skepticism. I have a problem with obviously misplaced dogmatism.

In fact, if you're trying to get more people to be skeptical about any particular explanation for 9/11, then spouting off unsupportable dogmatic exaggerations will hurt you more than it will help.