Evidence That 9/11 Pentagon Video Was Photo-shopped

[Deleted]

     We've had some discussions here about the FBI's 84 confiscated Pentagon videos from 9/11 that have never been released to the public.

     But here is a fascinating recent analysis that I had never seen until today.  Of the two 9/11 Pentagon videos that WERE released, the one frame which should have clearly shown the missile (or plane) appears to have been photo-shopped by the government officials who released the film.  (See below.)  It's an excellent comparative analysis of the two films.

     (Please don't comment on this thread WITHOUT carefully observing the precise analysis of the corresponding frames.)


9/11 - "Photoshopping" Discovered in Government Released Pentagon Attack Video

[Walter]

According to your video, someone photoshopped images of an AIRPLANE.
So are we done now?

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2017 17:56:37 GMT -5 Walter said:

According to your video, someone photoshopped images of an AIRPLANE.
So are we done now?

Are you kidding, Walter?

The central questions raised by this excellent video analysis are;

1)  Why won't the U.S. government release all of the confiscated 9/11 Pentagon videos?

2)  Why did the government photo-shop the only video they did release, in order to erase the image of the cruise missile or small plane that hit the Pentagon?

Can you answer those key questions without disappearing this time?

[Walter]

Jul 16, 2017 18:18:29 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 16, 2017 17:56:37 GMT -5 Walter said:

According to your video, someone photoshopped images of an AIRPLANE.
So are we done now?

Are you kidding, Walter?

The central questions raised by this excellent video analysis are;

1)  Why won't the U.S. government release all of the confiscated 9/11 Pentagon videos?

2)  Why did the government photo-shop the only video they did release, in order to erase the image of the cruise missile or small plane that hit the Pentagon?

Can you answer those key questions without disappearing this time?

No, the central point of the video is that it uses information about a 757 to assemble a story that the video was photoshopped. It shows us, for instance, what it calls "the tail of the plane", (their words) [see the 3:50 mark].
So which is it? A photoshopped 757 image or it wasn't photoshopped? Can't be both. A cruise missile doesn't have a large tail section. And they show us a blurry picture of a tail section of an airplane. End of story. You're done.

[daleko]

Jul 16, 2017 18:48:55 GMT -5 Walter said:

End of story. You're done.

Until the next rabbit hole he jumps down. Reading him is like watching a large ant farm that you can see from the side. Nothing much gets productively done but they dig a lot.

[Walter]

Jul 16, 2017 20:03:16 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 16, 2017 18:48:55 GMT -5 Walter said:

End of story. You're done.

Until the next rabbit hole he jumps down. Reading him is like watching a large ant farm that you can see from the side. Nothing much gets productively done but they dig a lot.

"...So put your little hand in mine,
There ain't no hill or mountain we can't climb..."

Babe.....

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2017 18:48:55 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 16, 2017 18:18:29 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Are you kidding, Walter?

The central questions raised by this excellent video analysis are;

1)  Why won't the U.S. government release all of the confiscated 9/11 Pentagon videos?

2)  Why did the government photo-shop the only video they did release, in order to erase the image of the cruise missile or small plane that hit the Pentagon?

Can you answer those key questions without disappearing this time?

No, the central point of the video is that it uses information about a 757 to assemble a story that the video was photoshopped. It shows us, for instance, what it calls "the tail of the plane", (their words) [see the 3:50 mark].
So which is it? A photoshopped 757 image or it wasn't photoshopped? Can't be both. A cruise missile doesn't have a large tail section. And they show us a blurry picture of a tail section of an airplane. End of story. You're done.

Walter,

   If you think the tail section seen there was a 757, get some new eyeglasses.  That white object was WAY too small to be a Boeing 757.

   Since you won't answer the two critical questions, I'll do it for you and the Cheese.

    The government has sequestered and photo-shopped the film because they don't want the public to know that the Pentagon was not hit by a 757.

     It's a 21st century version of what happened with the Zapruder film. In the case of the Zapruder film, the CIA didn't want the public to know that JFK was killed by a right frontal head shot fired from the grassy knoll.
So, C.D. Jackson bought the film for the Company, and Luce locked it away for years.  Then Jackson and his Life magazine employees published an altered sequence of Zapruder stills-- to support the CIA's "lone nut" in the TSBD cover story.

      Even J. Edgar Hoover admitted that the photo sequence in Life magazine had been "accidentally" altered.

[Walter]

Jul 16, 2017 22:43:00 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 16, 2017 18:48:55 GMT -5 Walter said:

No, the central point of the video is that it uses information about a 757 to assemble a story that the video was photoshopped. It shows us, for instance, what it calls "the tail of the plane", (their words) [see the 3:50 mark].
So which is it? A photoshopped 757 image or it wasn't photoshopped? Can't be both. A cruise missile doesn't have a large tail section. And they show us a blurry picture of a tail section of an airplane. End of story. You're done.

Walter,

   If you think the tail section seen there was a 757, get some new eyeglasses.  That white object was WAY too small to be a Boeing 757.

   Since you won't answer the two critical questions, I'll do it for you and the Cheese.

    The government has sequestered and photo-shopped the film because they don't want the public to know that the Pentagon was not hit by a 757.

     It's a 21st century version of what happened with the Zapruder film. In the case of the Zapruder film, the CIA didn't want the public to know that JFK was killed by a right frontal head shot fired from the grassy knoll.
So, C.D. Jackson bought the film for the Company, and Luce locked it away for years.  Then Jackson and his Life magazine employees published an altered sequence of Zapruder stills-- to support the CIA's "lone nut" in the TSBD cover story.

      Even J. Edgar Hoover admitted that the photo sequence in Life magazine had been "accidentally" altered.

So you dispute your own posted video.
Fair enough.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2017 23:06:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 16, 2017 22:43:00 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Walter,

   If you think the tail section seen there was a 757, get some new eyeglasses.  That white object was WAY too small to be a Boeing 757.

   Since you won't answer the two critical questions, I'll do it for you and the Cheese.

    The government has sequestered and photo-shopped the film because they don't want the public to know that the Pentagon was not hit by a 757.

     It's a 21st century version of what happened with the Zapruder film. In the case of the Zapruder film, the CIA didn't want the public to know that JFK was killed by a right frontal head shot fired from the grassy knoll.
So, C.D. Jackson bought the film for the Company, and Luce locked it away for years.  Then Jackson and his Life magazine employees published an altered sequence of Zapruder stills-- to support the CIA's "lone nut" in the TSBD cover story.

      Even J. Edgar Hoover admitted that the photo sequence in Life magazine had been "accidentally" altered.

So you dispute your own posted video.
Fair enough.

Huh?  Talking to yourself?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

The point of the video that is the subject of this thread is that it was, obviously, photo-shopped by the U.S. government officials who confiscated it on 9/11.

Do you agree with the well defined evidence of photo-shopping by the government-- i.e., tampering with the evidence?

[Walter]

Jul 17, 2017 10:54:00 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 16, 2017 23:06:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

So you dispute your own posted video.
Fair enough.

Huh?  Talking to yourself?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

The point of the video that is the subject of this thread is that it was, obviously, photo-shopped by the U.S. government officials who confiscated it on 9/11.

Do you agree with the well defined evidence of photo-shopping by the government-- i.e., tampering with the evidence?

If we all agree it was photoshopped, it means we also agree that an object with a very large tail section is seen, which means it wasn't a missile, but an airplane, right?

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2017 11:27:18 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 17, 2017 10:54:00 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Huh?  Talking to yourself?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

The point of the video that is the subject of this thread is that it was, obviously, photo-shopped by the U.S. government officials who confiscated it on 9/11.

Do you agree with the well defined evidence of photo-shopping by the government-- i.e., tampering with the evidence?

If we all agree it was photoshopped, it means we also agree that an object with a very large tail section is seen, which means it wasn't a missile, but an airplane, right?

Go back and study the film, Walt.

What we clearly see is a small white plane or cruise missile hitting the first floor of the Pentagon-- without scratching the lawn.  A low plume of white smoke trails the missile/small plane.

If you know what a 757 looks like, you will easily see that whatever hit the Pentagon was MUCH smaller than a 757.

[Walter]

Jul 17, 2017 13:59:23 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 17, 2017 11:27:18 GMT -5 Walter said:

If we all agree it was photoshopped, it means we also agree that an object with a very large tail section is seen, which means it wasn't a missile, but an airplane, right?

Go back and study the film, Walt.

What we clearly see is a small white plane or cruise missile hitting the first floor of the Pentagon-- without scratching the lawn.  A low plume of white smoke trails the missile/small plane.

If you know what a 757 looks like, you will easily see that whatever hit the Pentagon was MUCH smaller than a 757.

No, I see an object with a large tail section, and so does the narrator.
He notes it at the 4:12 mark. And it is THAT object that he claims was photoshopped out of the second video.

(and BTW, I don't actually "see" squat in either of those videos that is conclusive at all.)

...and also, there is a driveway adjacent to the building, not grass.

....and then there's this inconvenience to explain.

[daleko]

Jul 17, 2017 14:12:23 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 17, 2017 13:59:23 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Go back and study the film, Walt.

What we clearly see is a small white plane or cruise missile hitting the first floor of the Pentagon-- without scratching the lawn.  A low plume of white smoke trails the missile/small plane.

If you know what a 757 looks like, you will easily see that whatever hit the Pentagon was MUCH smaller than a 757.

No, I see an object with a large tail section, and so does the narrator.
He notes it at the 4:12 mark. And it is THAT object that he claims was photoshopped out of the second video.

(and BTW, I don't actually "see" squat in either of those videos that is conclusive at all.)

...and also, there is a driveway adjacent to the building, not grass.

....and then there's this inconvenience to explain.

And you're not even breathing hard after all of that work.

[Walter]

Jul 17, 2017 17:18:58 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 17, 2017 14:12:23 GMT -5 Walter said:

No, I see an object with a large tail section, and so does the narrator.
He notes it at the 4:12 mark. And it is THAT object that he claims was photoshopped out of the second video.

(and BTW, I don't actually "see" squat in either of those videos that is conclusive at all.)

...and also, there is a driveway adjacent to the building, not grass.

....and then there's this inconvenience to explain.

And you're not even breathing hard after all of that work.

"...they say our love won't pay the rent..."

[Deleted]

Well, it's impossible to argue with two guys who can't even look at a video and see that the white missile-like object that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 is way too small to be a Boeing 757.

I'll leave it to discerning, honest viewers to decide-- if there are any on this forum. 

Here we go again...

Exhibit A