911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

[FalseFlag]

Here is a couple of TV screens shot in Cheney's office...
I rest my case.

Look at this picture.

You can clearly make out the words "World Trade Center".

If you download the original here, you can zoom in on the TV as much as you want. You will see that you can easily make out the words, "World Trade Center" until you zoom in too far; however, at no magnification or zoom level can you see the time, temperature, or ABC logo with the same clarity. The distortion, or obfuscation, of the time, temperature and ABC logo are uniform, even though the text is nearly the same size as the "World Trade Center" text.

You can also see the two black dots, which should not be there.

I have given this a great deal of thought, and they would have no reason to blur the time from the VCR, even if it was wrong. Here's why:
1. The TV is a Magnavox.
2. The TV is clearly resting on top of a Sony VCR.
3. The TV/VCR is being controlled by a Sony remote. It does not matter if the remote is for the VCR, or if it's a universal remote.
4. It was a common practice to hook the cable connection into the VCR, and then connect the TV to the VCR.
5. If 4 explained the actual setup, it would be common to use the VCR as the tuner.
6. Because of the above, it would be completely normal for the VCR to display time (correct, unset, or not correct) and channel information on the TV.

In other words, there would be no reason to obfuscate channel or time information if it was inadvertently displayed. It could easily be explained away because of what I wrote above. Not only is it plausible, it was an extraordinarily common practice. The TV could have been showing any time, any date, any channel, or anything similar; it all could have been easily explained away.

Based on the facts I have presented above, I suspect that the problem is that the VCR displayed something they could not explain away. I suspect that the VCR was showing that a tape was being played. That's possibly why they had to blur it, and my opinion is that they did a lousy job. The possible reason why they had to blur this image is nothing more than my suspicion, but I stand by my claim that the image was edited.



I thought you were trying to tell me to go away. All of your posts just make me want to keep coming back.

 

[Sabrina]

I found it:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB358a/doc22.pdf
This timeline was created a few days after 9/11 by USSS staff agents. Page 10/11:

"1326 hrs Laura Chadwick is coming to the Observatory to pack a bag for Mrs. Cheney
[...]
1633 hrs Notified by SA Fiesel that Angler and Author [code names for Dick and Lynne Cheney] may be leaving shortly en route NAVOBS. Arrival will be Gillis Gate."​

So I was wrong about "fetching" a travel bag, Laura Chadwick merely "packed" one. Conceivably, it wasn't brought to the White House because the Cheney's were first expected to come by their residence before further evacuation (other entries inform about beefed-up security at the Naval Observatory); but they never did leave the White House before being taken directly to Camp David later in the evening (2200 hrs). Perhaps Cheney decided to stay when he learned around 1630 hours that the President would return ASAP. This could then be consistent with someone bringing Lynne's bag, with earrings, to the PEOC.

(I feel a bit like a truther, spinning a biased yarn from vague information )

I'm sort of surprised that the terminology was "pack" a bag.

I would assume that most people in positions such as VP and President, they and their families would need to keep a "go-bag" packed and ready to go.

 

[DGM]

The problem is that the VCR displayed something they could not explain away. The VCR was showing that a tape was being played. That's why they had to blur it, and they did a lousy job.

Wait, what is your evidence that the VCR is actually running? Would it be because you need it to be?

And I thought you were trying to tell me to go away. All of your posts just make me want to keep coming back.

No one's telling you to go away. Just respond in kind.

 

[Sabrina]

Look at this picture.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/ChdpzLx.jpg[/qimg]

You can clearly make out the words "World Trade Center".

If you download the original here, you can zoom in on the TV as much as you want. You will see that you can easily make out the words, "World Trade Center" until you zoom in too far; however, at no magnification or zoom level can you see the time, temperature, or ABC logo with the same clarity. The distortion, or obfuscation, of the time, temperature and ABC logo are uniform, even though the text is nearly the same size as the "World Trade Center" text.

You can also see the two black dots, which should not be there.

I have given this a great deal of thought, and they would have no reason to blur the time from the VCR, even if it was wrong. Here's why:
1. The TV is a Magnavox.
2. The TV is clearly resting on top of a Sony VCR.
3. The TV/VCR is being controlled by a Sony remote. It does not matter if the remote is for the VCR, or if it's a universal remote.
4. It was a common practice to hook the cable connection into the VCR, and then connect the TV to the VCR.
5. If 4 explained the actual setup, it would be common to use the VCR as the tuner.
6. Because of the above, it would be completely normal for the VCR to display time (correct, unset, or not correct) and channel information on the TV.

In other words, there would be no reason to obfuscate channel or time information if it was inadvertently displayed. It could easily be explained away because of what I wrote above. Not only is it plausible, it was an extraordinarily common practice. The TV could have been showing any time, any date, any channel, or anything similar; it all could have been easily explained away.

The problem is that the VCR displayed something they could not explain away. The VCR was showing that a tape was being played. That's why they had to blur it, and they did a lousy job.



I thought you were trying to tell me to go away. All of your posts just make me want to keep coming back.

There are no black dots. I have zoomed in until it's just a collection of unrecognizable pixels, and I see no black dots whatsoever.

I think you need your eyes checked.

 

[FalseFlag]

For some reason, Lynne Cheney is being discussed with some frequency. The evidence you all have presented is pretty convincing. I have not researched it in any detail so I can't really comment on it, other than to say that at first glance it is convincing. I also admit it raises many questions about various timelines.

I have two observations that instantly come to mind. They prove nothing, and they disprove nothing. Right now, they are nothing more than red flags.

1. It seems odd that the SS would allow Mrs. Cheney to stay at the salon while the US was under attack. That seems really odd, and does not pass a "smell test."

2. If you look at the earliest pictures of Mrs. Cheney in the PEOC her hair looks pretty good. In fact, you could argue that her hair was actually recently styled - completely. Does it seem reasonable that Mrs. Cheney was completely finished with the hair stylist at the moment the SS evacuated her? Does it seem reasonable that the SS would realize a need to evacuate her, but then wait for her to finish? I don't think so.

Again, the two red flags prove nothing, but they exist. I need more time to review all of the Mrs. Cheney evidence, but it will be heavily scrutinized.

 

[FalseFlag]

I see no black dots whatsoever.

Thanks. I needed to laugh hysterically.

 

[DGM]

1. It seems odd that the SS would allow Mrs. Cheney to stay at the salon while the US was under attack. That seems really odd, and does not pass a "smell test."

This one is not a red flag at all. Early on it was only thought to be a plane crash. It took some time to put together it was an attack.

 

[FalseFlag]

Wait, what is your evidence that the VCR is actually running? Would it be because you need it to be?

If anyone needed the VCR to be running it was Cheney.

I don't need the VCR to be running to prove my claim that Photoshop was used. The picture speaks for itself; it was edited. I stand by my claim that the picture was edited, and I have already stated my proof.

After I gave my proof that the picture was edited, I gave a possible explanation as to why. They would have no reason to blur the time stamp on the TV. If they were trying to show Cheney was in his office until 9:36, a time stamp of 9:28 would have been completely in line with their plan.

If you want to disagree with the why, then OK. I don't think I can do anything else to prove my suspicion. I will edit my earlier post to say that it is nothing more than a suspicion, based on the fact that the image was edited.

 

[FalseFlag]

This one is not a red flag at all. Early on it was only thought to be a plane crash. It took some time to put together it was an attack.

OK. You gave your opinion on the first red flag. What about the second?

 

[DGM]

If anyone needed the VCR to be running it was Cheney.

Why?

I don't need the VCR to be running to prove my claim that Photoshop was used. The picture speaks for itself. It was edited. I stand by claim that the picture was edited, and I have already stated my proof.

But you do. You have really proved nothing and the picture does not "speak for itself".

After I gave my proof that the picture was edited, I gave a possible explanation as to why. They would have no reason to blur the time stamp on the TV. If they were trying to show Cheney was in his office until 9:36, a time stamp of 9:28 would have been completely in line with their plan.

What plan?

If you want to disagree with the why, then OK. I don't think I can do anything else to prove my suspicion. I will edit my post to say that it is nothing more than a suspicion, based on the fact that the image was edited.

You really need to look up the word "prove". I don't think you truly understand the meaning.

 

[FalseFlag]

Why?

You already know why.

 

[beachnut]

You already know why.

What was Cheney's role in 911; or is that a secret you can't expose until after you team with a newspaper and earn the biggest Pulitzer Prize since Watergate. you will be in wiki...

Why are you stuck where we discuss the dumbest claims from 911 truth which have failed for 14 years. Why can't you post this as news? lol

You can't answer the simple questions, and have fail to find evidence for the false flag plot done on 911 which you can't detail past the failed non-answer, "you already know why".

 

[DGM]

You already know why.

No I don't. I know why you think he would need this but, have seen no reason why he would. No one is pressuring him.

 

[Sabrina]

Thanks. I needed to laugh hysterically.

Here's a thought.

Rather than "laughing hysterically", why don't you post a picture of what you see with the two "black dots" circled so we know what area of the picture you are looking at?

That's generally how one responds to a person claiming they cannot see what you see rather than laughing hysterically, since laughing hysterically proves absolutely zilch to the person who cannot see what you do. So go on; prove me wrong.

 

[pgimeno]

If anyone needed the VCR to be running it was Cheney.

Probably. He was analysing the events of the day, so he may have recorded a part and replayed it later. SO WHAT? What does that prove? That Cheney uses a video recorder as an aid? Oh well, he's probably guilty of that!

And of course the "proof" of image tampering is hogwash. The resolution of the timestamp is not enough for it to be readable. Even taking the non-blurred version of the video and matching it to the TV set, I got this:

Here's a detail view, zoomed in over the time:

Can you read the time and temperature?

Can you imagine how it would look if it was somewhat blurrier as the TV screen actually was?

Can you show us your attempt at doing the same thing?

Do you understand now why I say yours is Simon Shack-grade image analysis?

 

[Oystein]

Telling the truth makes one a "truther".

In my experience, the opposite is true:

When a 9/11 Truther has a choice between two witness statements - one is mistaken, one is correct - he will always pick the mistaken one.
When a 9/11 Truther has a choice between two witness statements - both are mistaken - he will always pick the more egregiously mistaken one.
When a 9/11 Truther has a choice between two claims - one is supported by evidence, the other merely conforms with his prejudice - he will pick the one not supported by evidence.
When a 9/11 Truther has a choice between two claims - one is supported by relevant evidence, the other by irrelevant evidence - he will pick the irrelevant evidence.
When a 9/11 Truther has a choice between the opinions of two scientists - one with eminent expertise and reputation in the relevant field, the other an amateur in the relevant field - he will pick the amateur opinion.
When a 9/11 truther has a choice between two hypotheses about some aspect of 9/11 - one is consistent with both his own beliefs and the "official story", the other contradicts both his and the "official" account - he will pick the one that contradicts his own belief (but without questioning or revising his own belief!)
When a 9/11 truther has a choice between two YouTube videos - one is original, unaltered footage and consistent with the common narrative, the other is clearly manipulated but supports the "Truth" - he will prefer the faked video.

If a 9/11 Truther based his arguments on facts, he would no longer be a 9/11 truther.
If a 9/11 Truther employed valid logic, he would no longer be a 9/11 truther.
If a 9/11 Truther asked relevant questions and accepted expert answers, he would no longer be a 9/11 truther.

In short, if a 9/11 Truther told the truth, he would no longer be a 9/11 truther.

 

[Oystein]

...The resolution of the timestamp is not enough for it to be readable. Even taking the non-blurred version of the video and matching it to the TV set, I got this:

Here's a detail view, zoomed in over the time:

Can you read the time and temperature?

Can you imagine how it would look if it was somewhat blurrier as the TV screen actually was? ...

Good work!
The screen in the photo is brighter (somewhat overexposed) and its colorbalance is signficantly blue-shifted. Both tend to decrease contrast. If you retouch the video-still (that you have already decreased in size to match the size of the screen in the photo) to
- increase gamma
- shift color balance toward blue
- apply a filter that simulates a slightly out-of-focus camera lens
I am pretty sure the logo gets as obscure as the real thing did.

 

[beachnut]

Telling the truth makes one a "truther".

Amazing, 911 truth truthers have never spoke the truth. A failed movement if truth, would be named "911 Lies".

Can you help Falseflag figure out photography?

 

[TJM]

There are no black dots. I have zoomed in until it's just a collection of unrecognizable pixels, and I see no black dots whatsoever.

I think you need your eyes checked.

Thanks. I needed to laugh hysterically.

Here's a thought.

Rather than "laughing hysterically", why don't you post a picture of what you see with the two "black dots" circled so we know what area of the picture you are looking at?

That's generally how one responds to a person claiming they cannot see what you see rather than laughing hysterically, since laughing hysterically proves absolutely zilch to the person who cannot see what you do. So go on; prove me wrong.

I agree with Sabrina -

What "black dots"?

 

[GlennB]

Truthism at its finest - non-existent 'black dots' carry deep significance.