More Previously Unreleased video footage - Penttbom.com
November 7, 2008
This site is a follow-up to my original site, Flight77.info. At Flight77.info I documented the legal process to obtain the mythical video(s) showing what hit the Pentagon on 9/11. In March of 2006, Flight77.info's FOIA lawsuit forced the release of the most recent Pentagon security camera footage (although in the news media, Judicial Watch took the credit for our work), and Flight77.info also forced the release of the Double Tree hotel video footage. All of this documentation is still live at Flight77.info, although I let that site expire and someone else has kindly reposted all the old documentation...
...We requested 64 of the 85 videos. And now, 3 years after learning of their existence within page 5 of the Maguire statement - finally the first interim release of these videos is at hand. On November 3rd the FBI delivered 10 DVDs in response to our requests and persistence of my excellent FOIA attorney, Scott Hodes...
Continued...
http://www.penttbom.com/
- Login to post comments
great job man
thank you for all your efforts. just make sure you make all o' those videos available online.
now it's 'just' the pentagon/citgo videos left. :O)
"wtf i hate all cops"
Steve Watson...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/unseen-911-footage-finally-being-released-by...
Doctored footage
I went to the home site and looked at all the videos. The 4th or 5th one down, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v22meQ0dcbE, has been modified.
The smoke in the top left of the screen moves very oddly compared to the rest of the scene.
I was wondering why when I noticed what looked like the faint blip of an airplane right in the centre of the fake smoke. I suspect that the plane is the E-4B that was probably directing operations and that the aim was to conceal it in the video.
There is definitely something fishy about that smoke
Its movements are not consistent with the movements of the camera.
Edit: Do not consider my remarks as promotion of Fakery yada yada and other related fringe 9/11 theory BS. Thanks!
yup
i doubt it was due to compression or something like that. can't be.
"wtf i hate all cops"
Could be compression
Could be compression artifacts, it's pretty consistent with a lot of videos uploaded to youtube, especially a shaky video. I encounter this with youtube at times, or working with DivX. The video could be crystal clear when I upload it, then upon youtube playback, such artifacts become apparent. We'll need to see the source DVD files to really judge these video clips.
Can't agree I'm afraid.
I've checked it out again and am still convinced its fakery.
I know what you mean about compression artifacts but this vid doesn't have much of that going on. The problem area is very clear and easy to distinguish from the rest of the picture. The thing that blows its cover is that the whole bloc of smoke in the foreground moves erratically in ways that have no correspondence to either the movement of the background or the camera.
The strangest thing is why, if its the government that did this, did they do such a terrible job of it. Admittedly I am a video maker, but I could do a better job than that with both hands tied behind my back.
How did I know
that the tv fakery/no-plane people would be all over this? Bernusdellus, you said you could do a better job with your hands tied behind your back. Why do you think that is? Why could you do a better job, not having the massive resources this government has?
It's because it's not faked. It has to do with the frame-rate that the video was compressed to, nothing more. TV fakery and no-plane talk is banned at most professional 9/11 research sites including this one, so I would not speak any more of this "fakery" disinfo here if I were you.
And by the way, if you didn't jump on your "fakery" bandwagon so soon and looked more closely at the video, the trees in the foreground are doing the same thing, just not as noticeable. In this video, the objects that are closer to the camera are more artifacted than the ones further away. That's why the smoke closer to the camera is artifacted and not the smoke further away from the camera near the towers. And if the aim was to conceal something in fake smoke, you wouldn't see the object being concealed at all.
So please, pay attention to EVERYTHING in a video before coming to a conclusion, not just what's most obvious.
Altered Video...
I am sorry, but there is definitely something wrong with that particular video.
A layer of smoke appears to have been added. It actually is fairly obvious.
Another question would be is why Black & White? That in itself is pretty odd (and easier to doctor).
I am certainly not a "TV fakery/no planer" person either.
Response
1. I don't support the idea that no planes hit the buildings [other than wtc7]. You appear to have dreamed that up on your own as there is no suggestion of it in my post.
2. The smoke in the video is almost certainly faked. In my opinion it's there to hide something, possibly the E-4B.
3. I am a video professional with considerable experience in making, modifying and viewing video work. Believe it or not, I understand and recognise compression artifacts. I'm convinced that this is not the phenomena we are discussing.
4. After reading your comment about the trees I reviewed the video to double check that aspect. The camera is moving and the trees certainly jitter around. However, the motion of the trees is completely different to the motion of the fake cloud.
5. The issue of who did this and why they would do such a bad job is by far the biggest question for me. Maybe it as the government, maybe not. I don't know and I'm not pushing any theories on it.
In conclusion, apart from your aggressive and ugly tone, your observations are incorrect.
I don't really want to get
I don't really want to get into this either, but the release of an obviously altered video with a group of authentic ones, could be some pathetic attempt to add creditability to the "TV fakery" disinformation campaign. In short, this could be a new supporting type of disinformation. Instead just "poisoning the well" per se, the idea here would be to "sweeten the poison."
That thought did cross my mind.
Depends on how devious the originator was being.
Scenario 1. Genuinely bad attempt by gatekeepers at hiding something in a video.
Scenario 2. Red herring video inserted amongst genuine videos as a trap for 9/11 truthers to be sprung in future by debunkers.
Scenario 3. Original owner of the video messed with it for reasons unknown.
There are other possibilities, but these are the ones that seem most likely to me. Scenario 1 seems very unlikely because the stunningly obvious fakery. Scenario 2 would make more sense, but it also stumbles over the quality issue.
Frankly, I'm baffled by the whole thing. Its there for a reason, but I'll leave working that out to someone else.
b.t.w. The guy who posted the thing in the first place is uploading a 200Mb uncompressed version. It should be available by tomorrow am. He's going to post the download details on the YouTube site with the video. I, for one, will be waiting in line to get a copy.
Check your email box, bernusdellus.
When people make claims about their professions here, I do check them out.