911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

[pgimeno]

It doesn't prove anything conclusively. Like I said before, it's probably from the VCR, and it could have been easily explained away if it showed the time, or something similar. It would not matter if the time or channel was correct or not.
There would also be absolutely no reason whatsoever to edit the image.

The problem is if those black lines represent something that would conclusively prove a tape was being played. There are two black lines, and they could represent a time. That seems most logical. If the text was --:--, or 00:00 to 23:59, it could easily be explained away. No one would have any reason to suspect anything was wrong, even if the time was wrong. No one bothers setting the correct time on their VCR, so there is no reason to trust it. However, if that first number was 24 or higher, then it could not possibly be attributed to a time of day. It could only be the time of the tape that had been played, or the time remaining.

My suspicion is that they saw this and blurred it out. They should have just refused to release the image. They had no problem not releasing image two in this series, so they could have easily made image three the first image and pretended the first two never existed.

Your suspicion is ridiculous. Whatever was there can't be readable at that distance and with the blur of the camera (possibly coming from either lack of focus, photographer's movement and/or phosphor glow), to start with. Whatever was visible there, I see zero signs that it was manipulated.

I haven't seen you showing us a text that remains readable at that size in these conditions yet. If you want to prove your point, you have work to do.

Do you realize that this would cause the entire timeline of these pictures to be called into question, which goes against their entire purpose of staging the pictures in the first place?

Why would more than that single picture be in question? The others show a time and temperature without the overlaid bit.

Example: he may have been replaying the second plane attack for someone else (the one that was replayed in the newsfeed at 9:25-9:26). Then they kept talking as the video player was still on.

I can understand why you want to call that hypothesis dumb, though.

 

[pgimeno]

Your starting assumptions are wrong. We're mostly just here because we enjoy arguing with people who don't really know how to think clearly, and sometimes we just like poking them with a stick to make them say something even more absurd.

Guilty

Also this: https://xkcd.com/386/

 

[pgimeno]

- An approximation to the exact second on video when the first picture was shot

I wouldn't take that one as an indication of when was it shot, for the reasons I discuss above.

 

[FalseFlag]

No it wouldn't, it would be frozen by the camera, at the point in the scan line where the electron beam was exciting the phosphorus compounds on the surface of the CRT.

Your not observing a digital image on an LED screen.

It is definitely an analog image on a CTR, Cathode Ray Tube, with an electron gun, aimed
At the scan line by a magnetic field.
The picture is a composite of individual scan lines, crawling black
Dots can appear on any scan line, dependent on the signal timing.

I would give more weight to your hypothesis if it occurred in more images. There are 14 images in the album, and this issue only appears in one image in the exact same area that has been intentionally blurred out. Anything is possible, but your hypothesis is extremely unlikely.

 

[FalseFlag]

Your starting assumptions are wrong.

No, they are correct. The reason why these images exist is clear. They exist to prove Cheney was someplace he was not.

We're mostly just here because we enjoy arguing with people who don't really know how to think clearly, and sometimes we just like poking them with a stick to make them say something even more absurd.

In this case, you're not arguing with someone who lacks the ability to think clearly. You also fail to admit that your fellow debunkers are the ones who are stating the absurdities.

This thread is a case in point; the communal stick-poking has resulted in you formulating a conspiracy theory in which the conspirators, with the connivance of VP Cheney, faked a photo to falsify the 9/11 timeline, noticed a minor discrepancy in the photo, and decided to address it by replacing it with another, equally visible, discrepancy and releasing the photo anyway when they could have simply not bothered. You yourself, showing at least a vestige of self-awareness, have commented on how ridiculous a supposition that is, yet you simply can't let it go.

I never said the person who decided to release this image had any brains. Stating the absurdity of what happened does nothing to prove that it didn't actually happen.

They did not replace any discrepancy. They simply blurred it to prevent others from discovering what it actually was.

 

[Oystein]

I wouldn't take that one as an indication of when was it shot, for the reasons I discuss above.

Why - because you think this actually IS play-back from video?

For you I'll prematurely publish a page on my blog that is merely a chronological album with all photos - starting with the first two rolls of film

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/p/blog-page.html

Here is a text listing of file names with the time as determined from TV synchronisation:
09:28:47 V1546-01
09:29:17 V1546-03
09:30:?? V1546-04
09:31:?? V1546-05
09:31:?? V1546-06
??:??:?? V1546-07
??:??:?? V1546-08
??:??:?? V1546-09
09:33:?? V1546-10
09:33:?? V1546-11
09:33:?? V1546-12
09:36:06 V1546-13
09:36:24 V1546-14
09:36:43 V1546-15

We know that around 9:33/34, Air Controllers informed the Secret Service about the inbound AA77. When the USSS guys saw it circling back (~9:35), they decided to evacuate the White House, and picked up Cheney.
So far, from logs and testimony, this was determined to have been just before 9:36 - the photos force a re-evaluation that Cheney wasn't evacuated before 9:37.
You see no one at anytime playing with the VCR. Cheney holds a remote control during Bush's speech, but most likely he just adjusted the volume.

The images on TV are in the correct chronological order given by the frame numbers (the two digits following the hyphen).

There is, in my opinion, no time (and no reason) for rewinding tape during the short time frame captured in the photos. This is live TV. If the 9:28 scene was watched from tape after 9:28, this would compress time further.

 

[FalseFlag]

I get the impression, FF, that you're relatively new to the whole 9/11 Truth thing, or at least haven't spent much time speaking with people who debunk it.

I spent three years trying to prove to myself that the official story was true. Eventually I could no longer fool myself, and I had to accept the fact that the official 9/11 story is an absurd lie. Many Americans accept the official story because there is no outside force causing them to question it. This will not change unless the media blackout is lifted.

The few people that do question the official story often end up here because they find the truth, but refuse to accept it because they don't want to believe that the government lied to them. They don't want to believe in the possibility that our government murdered 3000 people. They stay here because they are comforted by the illusions that you, and the other frequent posters, create through junk science or pseudo-science, misinformation, distortion and outright lies.

You are nothing more than the equivalent of a Sandman from Logan's Run. A Sandman would terminate runners. You terminate unwitting truth seekers. It must suck to keep failing with me.

You have to realize that you're dealing with people here who are, in many cases, at a professional or even expert level in their various fields and have many, MANY years experience at examining all the various bits and pieces and pointing out the discrepancies in conspiracy theorist's posts. The fact that you refuse to see when your inconsistencies are pointed out to you is immaterial to us; we're not really doing it for you.

Prove this. Government sponsored "experts" don't count.

At this point, nearly fifteen years after the whole shebang occurred, most of us are doing it for the amusement value, because at this point we have yet to encounter anything remotely resembling evidence of a conspiracy to deliberately crash planes into the towers and the Pentagon or whatever the conspiracy du jour is with you people. The little minor discrepancies and oddities that you CTers tend to nitpick mean very little in the real world, where it's accepted that there will be some discrepancies from one event to another, but those discrepancies do not negate the overall conclusions drawn from the entirety of the event. There are oddities in every major event in the entirety of human history, but they almost never indicate that there is something nefarious going on. You may refuse to accept that; that is your prerogative, but it is ours to mock the absurd levels CTers will stoop to in order to make things fit their twisted views of the world.

This post completely ignores the reality of the evidence that exists to prove that the official story is not only improbable, but impossible.

You can not claim that any of you are experts on anything if you refuse to accept the most basic scientific principles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww8hBFNY8jk

Watch the video. Then, instead of using your various nonsensical techniques to debunk the video, perform an experiment to prove the video is wrong. Go ahead. You can't. You can not, by experiment, prove the video is wrong. It is impossible to prove the video is wrong because you can not prove the most basic laws of physics are wrong. This is not a "little minor discrepancy," as you claim.

The only thing I would concede you all are "experts" in is spreading misinformation and lies.

 

[FalseFlag]

When the USSS guys saw it circling back (~9:35), they decided to evacuate the White House, and picked up Cheney.
.

We do not know this. Your claim is based on the official 9/11 story, which is BS.

You fail to consider much more credible evidence that exists.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/opinion/13SAFI.html
2. https://web.archive.org/web/2002100....go.com/onair/DailyNews/sept11_moments_2.html

There is much more information that you fail to consider. You simply quote one thing that supports your story, and you ignore everything else that doesn't. You are doing the same thing the 9/11 Commission did, which is why the report is utter BS.

Cheney was evacuated from his office right after the second plane hit. It makes sense, and that is what happened. To believe that the SS failed to do their job, and that Cheney sat in his office watching TV while a hijacked plane headed towards DC is not only absurd, it's delusional. The pictures make no sense on multiple levels. They make no sense because they are fake. Say whatever you want, the pictures speak for themselves. The pictures in Cheney's office are staged.

 

[pgimeno]

There is, in my opinion, no time (and no reason) for rewinding tape during the short time frame captured in the photos. This is live TV. If the 9:28 scene was watched from tape after 9:28, this would compress time further.

You're probably right. Also, the video shows no signs of being powered on. But I do see some kind of overlay in V-1546-01. I wonder if it could be for example a muted sound indicator.

 

[FalseFlag]

who'd a thunk that a less-than-perfect hairdo makes or breaks a huge and murderous government conspiracy?

It's far from "less-than-perfect", and it's not the only anomaly.

Each oddity, or anomaly, is a dot of information. When you look at all the dots, and then put them together, they point to deception and staged pictures.

 

[FalseFlag]

You're probably right. Also, the video shows no signs of being powered on. But I do see some kind of overlay in V-1546-01. I wonder if it could be for example a muted sound indicator.

OK. Let's discuss this.

MUTE

Mute

MUTED

Muted

Is there a space in that word? No. I don't see how any versions of those words would cause the illusion of a space between the left and right sides.

There is clearly a space between the left black line and the right black line.

This is more likely indicative of a time than a single word.

Is your hypothesis possible? Yes.

Is your hypothesis likely? Not really. It is less likely than two numbers.

There would also be no reason whatsoever to edit the picture unless something was showing that proved a tape was being played. A sound indicator would be normal.

 

[pgimeno]

OK. Let's discuss this.

MUTE

Mute

MUTED

Muted

Is there a space in that word? No. I don't see how any versions of those words would cause the illusion of a space between the left and right sides.

There is clearly a space between the left black line and the right black line.

This is more likely indicative of a time than a single word.

Is your hypothesis possible? Yes.

Is your hypothesis likely? Not really. It is less likely than two numbers.

Sound Off

How's your testing about how readable these things would be at that distance assuming no tampering? If you claim tampering you surely must have seen a difference.

 

[FalseFlag]

Sound Off

How's your testing about how readable these things would be at that distance assuming no tampering? If you claim tampering you surely must have seen a difference.

I have never seen "Sound off" in any electronic device. I'm not saying it does not exist, but I have never seen it. We are dealing with Magnavox and Sony devices. "Mute" is what would have been displayed.

I have already proven the image was edited. The black lines are not required to prove my claim. The black lines are part of my suspicion as to why the image was edited.

 

[beachnut]

I would give more weight to your hypothesis if it occurred in more images. There are 14 images in the album, and this issue only appears in one image in the exact same area that has been intentionally blurred out. Anything is possible, but your hypothesis is extremely unlikely.

Yepper, can't be due to depth of field, or some photographic reason... it has to be full blown paranoid CT plot of BS based on lots of woo.

Nope, anything is no possible; but sure shows a positive attitude. He's got high hopes, he's...

LOL, you keep making up nonsense about Cheney, when he had zero impact on the events of 911; it was all over before they figured out they only had four planes. I could not believe UBL found 19 nuts dumb enough to do 911. Amazing UBL talked 19 nuts into doing 911; now after 14 years of 911 truth cult members spewing nonsense; I now see there is a bigger pool out there of gullible people to pick from; albeit a fringe few, but more than 19.

 

[pgimeno]

I have never seen "Sound off" in any electronic device. I'm not saying it does not exist, but I have never seen it. We are dealing with Magnavox and Sony devices. "Mute" is what would have been displayed.

I have. And I have also seen icons next to words sometimes.

I have already proven the image was edited. The black lines are not required to prove my claim. The black lines are part of my suspicion as to why the image was edited.

I haven't seen your proof. What was it again?

 

[FalseFlag]

LOL, you keep making up nonsense about Cheney, when he had zero impact on the events of 911;

That's what they are trying to get you to believe. The next time you ask me "why" they would stage the pictures, please remember this post and that you answered your own question.

 

[FalseFlag]

I haven't seen your proof. What was it again?

It is in post #233. If you haven't seen my proof, how can you claim that I'm wrong?

 

[beachnut]

That's what they are trying to get you to believe. The next time you ask me "why" they would stage the pictures, please remember this post and that you answered your own question.

You have never explained why, and I have no answered my question I asked of you; you keep ignoring the fact you have no plot, no story to go with your nonsense. Why can't you expand on why, which you have never explained, and appear you can't come up with a story to go with your nonsense opinions.


How does this nonsense of the bar, spots, and two marys fit in the plot you can't explain, or support with evidence? You keep exposing a lack of knowledge of photography, as if you spent zero time researching the subject fields needed to see your opinions are flawed, and more likely total nonsense.

Of course the wingnuts on that forum are going crazy trying to say I'm wrong, but I think I'm right.

Crazy? You present nonsense, and call the people who correct your errors, crazy?
Wow, you think you are right. Did you think your fringe failed opinions might be too far out even for a 911 truth based fantasy forum?
A reality based forum puts 911 truth discussion in the appropriate sub-forum - and labels it with the truth, unlike the name 911 truth - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories is where you are posting, not current events, or news, or reality, but where the crazy claims of 911 truth are discussed, and possibly getting a handle on why the people who believe and make the 911 truth fake claims lost the ability to exercise critical thinking skills and skepticism.


Your proof failed. Have you gone to a newspaper with this stuff? Are you afraid to go to a newspaper and break the biggest story since Watergate?

BTW, 19 terrorists did 911 with four planes, with no help on the acts on 911. Cheney did not impact anything. Are you a standdown guy

 

[pgimeno]

It is in post #233. If you haven't seen my proof, how can you claim that I'm wrong?

I saw that post, but I didn't see it as a proof because it doesn't prove what it claims to prove (thus you're wrong). I've already told you where it's wrong. Since after I pointed that out to you, you kept claiming you proved it, I wondered if there was some other proof that I missed. Turns out not to be the case.

See, in order to sustain your claim in post #233, you need to show how a non-tampered version would not show the pixelated appearance that you claim is part of the tampering, and that the text would be readable.

You have failed to provide such evidence. Oystein and I have both shown the contrary. Therefore your proof is not such.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The few people that do question the official story often end up here because they find the truth, but refuse to accept it because they don't want to believe that the government lied to them. They don't want to believe in the possibility that our government murdered 3000 people. They stay here because they are comforted by the illusions that you, and the other frequent posters, create through junk science or pseudo-science, misinformation, distortion and outright lies.

You are nothing more than the equivalent of a Sandman from Logan's Run. A Sandman would terminate runners. You terminate unwitting truth seekers.

Ooooh, drama queen! So if all we do is terminate truth seekers, why bother coming here at all, given that none of the others seem to be here?

Dave