by Vince Giesbrecht
Dear Jim,
I just finished listening to the Stubblebine interview, which was truly remarkable. Once again, it impressed on me how LITTLE some of these top Generals probably know in general(!) … about what is really going on … because they just blindly trust their government. He’s done pretty good though, all things considered.
Now, you two were discussing the Pentagon surveillance videos and I was just looking at these again in the last couple of days so it was rather co-incidental that some of my recent observations fit in so well with what you were talking about.
I’d like to share these with you to add to your general comprehension.
Stubblebine suggested that the object in the video would likely be a missile, which is what I’d been thinking, too … until now. Just an assumption which I’d never really bothered to analyze.
When I looked closely at the video again, several things really stood out. Here are the frame sequences from the 2 selected cameras which were released to the public.
On the top is the “#2” video and on the bottom is the other one. I’ve highlighted the “smoke trail” on the top and the “nose” of the plane at the bottom.
Well, here’s the thing…
If it was a plane, it’s kind of “low” for a 757 … isn’t it? Is there some kind of hill between? Not likely.
So maybe it’s a missile?
“But stop and think, Vince,” (I said to myself) …
This plane was supposed to be going at about 490 mph … which is 725 feet per second. That’s about half the speed of a rifle bullet.
If it was a missile, it would probably be moving about as fast as a bullet.
To CATCH a clearly defined nose of the device or even the vapor trail (so clearly delineated on the top video) … the camera would have needed to utilize an incredibly fast shutter speed to stop the action. Surveillance cameras of the time didn’t use shutters at all; they scanned continually. Any motion of that speed then … would have created an indistinguishable blur on the scene.
As far as I know, those cameras took a picture every second or so … but they had no shutters. They simply scanned the sensor from top to bottom like you read a book: left to right and down on each line. That means …. as the object moved to the left and the scan was progressing downward, the bottom of the image would appear to be further left than the top of the image … a kind of diagonal distortion.
This is a rough example of the effect, but taken with a vertical slide shutter camera in the old days.
The bottom of the wheels appear to be “ahead” of the top of the wheels … because the race car is moving fast to the left and the shutter slit on the camera is moving downwards. Same effect as a moving, scanning spot on an old CRT television screen.
To make matters worse on an old surveillance camera system (using tape recording and analog TV) …
The analog TV system used raster interlacing … to reduce flicker. There were 525 lines in total on the screen with 30 frames per second, consisting of two consecutive fields, each containing 262.5 lines, produced at 60 times a second. Field one would scan odd lines -1,3,5 etc. to the bottom and then go back to the top and scan field 2 … the even lines 2,4,6 etc to the bottom. So each frame was scanned twice from top to bottom with the scan lines interlacing.
Well …
Any rapid motion then would not only pull to the direction of movement diagonally but … on field two, the image would already be shifted and would shift again … creating the effect of a double image on the screen … diagonally pulled and hopelessly blurred!
So it would be impossible to catch anything but an indistinguishable blur on any surveillance camera of the analog type … with anything moving that fast … regardless of how MUCH of the image was captured.
But here are a few more things I noticed while examining the videos again.
Here’s a sequence of 4 consecutive frames from camera 2:
Notice how the bottom left frame -the one ostensibly showing the strike (with a vapor trail still behind it)- shows the corner edges of the lens much larger than the other frames. Now how is that possible if all of these frames come from the same camera in the same time frame as the others?
Look at the top left of this frame and you see a “cloud” and sky … where the other frames show building. Why is the ground blued up? And why is there an additional shadow in the shade of the Pentagon, not present in the other frames? (And why didn’t the tower strike create a similarly bright flash when that plane hit?)
This had to be one brilliant flash … to light up the Pentagon like that!! I’d kept thinking previously that the white flash was likely caused by some magnesium tip or depleted uranium tip on a missile … but now I’m convinced that this isn’t even real video at all.
Here’s why …
1) Frame 3 has the larger dark corners. It has to be a frame from another video, inserted and doctored up.
2) The white flash produces a red “shadow” on the structure in front of it??
3) The orange fireball is totally symmetric, enveloping a large part of the building, but no debris is flying out of that explosion.
4) In subsequent frames … taken 1 second apart — in the space of 4 seconds — the fireball immediately vanishes and a small amount of smoke begins to wisp out and then turns to massive smoke. This is totally unreal.
5) Look carefully where that vapor trail was going on frame 2. On frame 3 you see a black line to the left of the garbage can in the foreground and then in frame 4, you see the black line extending all the way to the right.
But that line isn’t in the first two frames. I’m guessing that this is where the gouge of the plane hitting the ground … was supposed to be!
Only problem with that is … there was no gouge on the ground, right?
And then … go a few frames forward from this last one and … suddenly the entire scene goes blindingly white!
Looks like they got this frame out of sequence because the smoke is already pouring out of the structure! I reckon this is where the initial impact was supposed to show a blindingly white flash … but it comes a bit too late.
So I now believe that the entire thing was photoshopped and shows NOTHING that was really happening. This is why they’re not releasing the other 80+ videos: it’s just TOO MUCH WORK to doctor them all.
–Vince Giesbrecht
MOST WANTED
http://www.boombu.com – fitness you x
http://www.sextamina.com – sex xx
http://www.aceofbeauty.com – fat loss sexy
http://www.bestbuyx.com – sex xx
http://www.theorchidx.com – orchids orchidaceae phalaenopsis care
http://www.babxyz.com – dog food xx
http://www.babysolve.com – baby potty xx
http://www.suwandri.com – options trading xx
http://www.googleclickbank.com – forex fx xx
http://www.jelema.com – fat loss xx
http://www.bestbuygameguide.com — betting money xx
mesothelioma master xx
Yesterday on his show, Jeff Rense and his guest Larry Nichols vehemently condemned Muslim as dangerous and subversive, going so far as to call for the occupation of their mosques, without saying a word criticizing Judaism or calling for any sanctions against it or other religions.
Dis-Info Meant To Causing Confusion, Dissension
Above babbling by anon at 8:46 pm is just more blathering dis-info and assertion without substantiation, even against all evidence. After the first two paragraphs of nonsense, we get the following:
"…[I]t is quite clear that an aircraft hit the pentagon and two other aircraft hit the towers. There was no controlled demolition because it would have taken months to wire those buildings and cut all appropriate supports, and people would have seen it."
There's no evidence any plane hit the Pentagon; indeed, all evidence has been concealed and withheld. A plane couldn't have been traveling at the speed indicated and at such low level of altitude.
Observe further the transparent, blithe lies about planes hitting the WTC towers, the alleged planes going much too fast for the conditions and capability of the planes, not to mention the obvious doctoring of the vids of the planes, the one for the N. tower making an impossible and absurd hole in the bldg., and the other plane passing into the bldg. as if flowing through a sheet of water, when there would have been a tremendous explosion w. much if not most debris falling to the ground outside.
We know fm Rebekah Roth (see numerous u-tube vids) that Israeli agents ("art students") lived on the 91st floor for up to 4 yrs (!) before 9/11 and had construction worker passes to be able to go anywhere in the bldgs.
Further, who says it had to be controlled demo w. thermite?–as it could have been done w. micro-nukes or directed energy, according to Dr. Judy Wood (see WhereDidTheTowersGo.com or many u-tube vids).
Then we have the lies about heat to 500 degrees C, but steel disperses heat, and the fires didn't burn nearly hot enough or long enough, as is well-known.
Finally, observe the writer of the lies refers indefinitely to some unspecified "theory" which allegedly "just doesn't work," "desperately" held by "some people"–which obviously makes no sense.
Fact is, we know who did 9/11–JEWS and cohorts–and the only question is how much the people of the world and USA will continue to take fm these anti-human monsters before dealing w. the problem. Unfortunately, it looks like many will have to perish before the survivors even begin to glimpsing an inkling for solution.
And Jews have numerous strategically-placed cohorts within the gentile society, these all acting in accord w. satanic principles of lies and deception which too many people ignore and refuse to figure-out, these ideas having to do w. moralism and subjectivism.
Too bad we can't get any useful help fm the philosophical establishment for dealing w. this horrific satanic cultural complex–but we see, rather, it's very purpose of such establishment to see to security and furtherance of satanism, the crux to the infernal system being the criminal central-banking establishment, literally legalized COUNTERFEITING, key and essential practical instrument and mechanism making all else about the complex possible, effective, and successful for continuing "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler.
He hadn't heard about it because they already knew what happened, how it happened, and who did it. Why would they go chasing after a theory that's so complex and convoluted that it makes absolutely no sense. See my long winded post below for a better explanation.
And truth be told, I once believed in the 9/11 truth movement because of much of the early "evidence", but as I did more and more research to try and find a true smoking gun, I kept finding things that proved the early evidence to be wrong.
I think everyones time and energy would be much better spent trying to nail the Government on these fake shootings. Or even better, catch them red-handed while trying to pull one off.
I've been going over the most recent I can find Federal Law Enforcement Training schedule (07-17-2015) and i keep seeing reference to some upcoming "drills" in "Artesia". I wonder if that's Artesia, CA. That's less than 5 miles from me.
What we see in the video has to do with 1990's CCD camera technology that meters the light in the scene and compensates the 'exposure' (i don't think that's the right term). Because these cameras film at such a slow frame rate, a dramatic adjustment due to a bright event could cause only a frame or two to be washed out. I believe this is what we see in the video. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if those CCD's were from the 1980's.
The videos of the towers being hit were not filmed on a 15 or less frames per second piece of junk CCD from the 80's or 90's. They were filmed at 30fps with cameras of MUCH higher quality and have much more sophisticated light metering and compensation.
As much as I dislike the Government, it is quite clear that an aircraft hit the pentagon and two other aircraft hit the towers. There was no controlled demolition because it would have taken months to wire those buildings and cut all appropriate supports, and people would have seen it.
Most importantly, the collapse of the towers as well as building 7 is easily explained by a simple concept anyone who has worked with steel understands. It's called "annealing". Heat hardened steel to 500'c and it loses over 50% of it's strength. With the towers already compromised structurally, this would have easily caused what we saw.
As for building 7, it's the same principal. But with that building the main support structure was steel reinforced concrete in the below ground levels. This was initially damaged from the towers coming down and for many hours afterward, the reinforced concrete was subjected to high temperatures due to the fires. Heat reinforced concrete to just a few hundred degrees C and it loses over 50% of it's strength. a few years ago here in California a gasoline tanker truck burst into flames under a freeway overpass that was much more robust than you see back east due to earthquake retrofits, and in no time the heat from the tanker fire caused the whole thing to collapse.
http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2007/04/29/d6279583-a642-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/thumbnail/620×350/fb12206a4054b3db0c63dbabc2522508/image2739453x.jpg
I'm not sure how how those fires in the trade center were, but the other night I tested how much heat was coming out of the top of my BBQ charcoal chimney starter thing with a thermocouple for my digital multimeter, and it read just over 900'f. That is just shy of 500'c. And I guarantee you the fires in those towers were much otter than that.
Don't get me wrong, this doesn't explain all the other sh*t that doesn't add up with 9/11. I just think that some people need to stop desperately hanging on to a theory that just doesn't work.
Fetzer And Truth Movement's GROSS Failure Of Philosophy And Induction, Submergence In Minutiae
I don't say Fetzer, and others, are wrong for taking due note of the items and details–where they fail horribly, grossly, and most significantly is in the generalization (induction) and philosophy which is absolutely necessary.
For as I've noted, the 9/11 conspiracy is truly an OUTRAGEOUS conspiracy–it's nothing less than satanic, and I've defined this satanism very precisely–extreme subjectivism, the hubristic making oneself God, creating reality. This isn't mere "spiritualism," even if it is abstract, product of induction.
Further, note this satanism isn't only well and perfectly defined, it's actually noted and observed by many–as in the "hip-hop" music and entertainment industry, and even for hitlery Clinton's apparent immunity for same and even worse alleged violations and prosecution as was done to Gen. Petraeus and most notoriously to many "whistle-blowers" on "nat. security" pretext.
So Fetzer and Truthers are failing HORRIBLY, miserably, signally, and it's precisely because they won't and refuse to pt. to the obvious problem of satanism, extreme subjectivism, and the cultural hubris and decadence which is masking the conspiracy, keeping people's attn. diverted and distracted–just as George Bush warned about.
And it's easy to identify the arbiters of this cultural satanism (extreme subjectivism), first in the mass-corp. "news"-media, but then also in the public edjumacation and judicial establishment which promotes it, as in the very recent pushing of the homosexual agenda.
Who is behind this deliberate satanism, hubris, and extreme subjectivism?–is it so difficult to identify them and name them?–no, of course not, not at all–that's the tragedy, and that's precisely where and how Fetzer and truthers fail for philosophy and induction, submerged and diverted in minutiae as we see they are and seem to prefer to being and doing.
All Fetzer and truthers need do is to use inductive logic and generalization, pt-ing to the OBVIOUS satanism and extreme subjectivism, easily defined, and actually well-noted by many. Isn't the satanism being used in very pointed manner for deliberate purpose?–and isn't hitlery Clinton a great beneficiary of this gross corruption and confusion?–an excellent specific case in pt.?
Truth movement understandably relies on such presumed philosophicals as Fetzer who so utterly fails for this necessary INDUCTION. For note it's good enough to pt. to this well-understood and -observed satanism, keeping in mind the simple definition, extreme subjectivism. It's great and horrible travesty if philosophicals like Fetzer continue proverbial fiddling in minutiae as Rome burns.
Actually, head of all US military intelligence. But he had retired prior to 9/11 and was therefore not familiar with research that Scholars for 9/11 Truth and others had conducted. I am impressed that he was so open- minded and will to consider evidence new to him.
I also was shocked that the one-time Head of Army Intelligence seemed to be aware of so little of Fetzer's evidence about 9/11. I bet the General said "I didn't know that" or "this is the first I've heard of that" a dozen times or more.