| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: New Pentagon footage - yes really |
 |
|
Just talking to Avery about the new Citgo footage released - nothing too conclusive yet though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk&eurl=
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Woodee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wow....that's erm... nonsense 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: New Pentagon footage - yes really |
|
|
Sir,
This video imagery is from an electronic camera. There is no 'footage' (a term derived from the film industry - which is known to use rolls of film) to be seen at all here.
I feel I should advise you that others might decide to take issue with your inaccurate merchandising under the Conspiracies Description Act (2001).
And if you must insist on describing it distance-wise, I would suggest instead using nanometres.
Hope this helps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
5:20 of my life down the pan for nothing.  Did I miss something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| busker wrote: | | 5:20 of my life down the pan for nothing. Did I miss something? |
There might be an explosion in progress in the upper right of the frame.
Or not - it's difficult to tell from a Youtube flash video at the best of times even from a visually perfect DVD sample.
Plus the datestamp is all wrong - midday Sunday Jan 1st. 1993 was actually a Friday (check it with your PC clock).
Shades of the previously released 12 Sept time stamped 5 frame Pentagon video that is equally useless and obscuring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That footage was *. It did not convey anything of any worth to me. It's like the recent footage at the Pentagon where the Photoshop job was shown as supposedly showing a plane flying at zero feet into the Pentagon followed by a trail of smoke. Airliners don't trail smoke: missiles do. That is probably why the film shows nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| what footage? you couldnt even make out the forecourt of the garage without looking closely, and theres a blurred strip at the bottom of the film. its a joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Judicial Watch say it is and the FBI obscured the lower half to protect the privacy of individuals. http://www.judicialwatch.org/
Obviously the FBI are making sure that each individual confiscated video has to be dragged out of them one at a time, and each proves more useless than the last, in the hope that Judicial Watch give up. Why should they do that if there is nothing to hide? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:43 am Post subject: Re: New Pentagon footage - yes really |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Sir,
This video imagery is from an electronic camera. There is no 'footage' (a term derived from the film industry - which is known to use rolls of film) to be seen at all here.
|
When I was at school (yes, I did actually go for three days), I clearly remember my english teacher picking up on one of my cohort's literary efforts. He had simply penned a standalone 'quality' to determined the worth of something. My teacher (Mr Gaffyne actually) - was incensed = 'What KIND of quality Stenning, was it good, bad, what was it? You cannot use 'quality' on its own!', he fumed.
Here we are some considerable years later and from my experience, I have witnessed countless examples where the word 'quality' is used on its own as in 'It's real quality', language having morphed to encompass its shoddy usage.
We live in an age where language is changing, my eldest daughter says 'sound' a lot to illustrate something acceptable. However;
This pales into insignificance when you can actually quote from a dictionary. Here try this from dictionary.com;
Footage: a motion-picture scene or scenes.
The supplied link took you to moving images, 'footage' being the generic word for said genre, regardless of source. I note you use the term 'electronic camera' - in that it was powered by electricity, they still use clockwork, or hand cranked image recording devices in some retail establishments? Perhaps you in fact mean 'digital'?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: Re: New Pentagon footage - yes really |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Sir,
This video imagery is from an electronic camera. There is no 'footage' (a term derived from the film industry - which is known to use rolls of film) to be seen at all here.
|
When I was at school (yes, I did actually go for three days), I clearly remember my english teacher picking up on one of my cohort's literary efforts. He had simply penned a standalone 'quality' to determined the worth of something. My teacher (Mr Gaffyne actually) - was incensed = 'What KIND of quality Stenning, was it good, bad, what was it? You cannot use 'quality' on its own!', he fumed.
Here we are some considerable years later and from my experience, I have witnessed countless examples where the word 'quality' is used on its own as in 'It's real quality', language having morphed to encompass its shoddy usage.
We live in an age where language is changing, my eldest daughter says 'sound' a lot to illustrate something acceptable. However;
This pales into insignificance when you can actually quote from a dictionary. Here try this from dictionary.com;
Footage: a motion-picture scene or scenes.
The supplied link took you to moving images, 'footage' being the generic word for said genre, regardless of source. I note you use the term 'electronic camera' - in that it was powered by electricity, they still use clockwork, or hand cranked image recording devices in some retail establishments? Perhaps you in fact mean 'digital'? |
 so the whole point of this was to correct someone for not paying attention in english? or was there another point to it? all i get from what he said was that he was talking to someone about new footage from the pentagon crash, but theres nothing conclusive yet, meaning he either hadnt found the footage or seen it yet or nothing in the footage that shows it. what was wrong with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Darn. It's tough to keep track of what has or hasn't been posted here at this forum with so many different threads and activity. I guess the heightened interest can only be seen as a good thing. Anyway, I posted some thoughts of my own about this revelation here.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4098 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky54, I was responding to this - the third post down;
Sir,
This video imagery is from an electronic camera. There is no 'footage' (a term derived from the film industry - which is known to use rolls of film) to be seen at all here.
I feel I should advise you that others might decide to take issue with your inaccurate merchandising under the Conspiracies Description Act (2001).
And if you must insist on describing it distance-wise, I would suggest instead using nanometres.
Hope this helps.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: Re: New Pentagon footage - yes really |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Sir,
This video imagery is from an electronic camera. There is no 'footage' (a term derived from the film industry - which is known to use rolls of film) to be seen at all here.
|
When I was at school (yes, I did actually go for three days), I clearly remember my english teacher picking up on one of my cohort's literary efforts. He had simply penned a standalone 'quality' to determined the worth of something. My teacher (Mr Gaffyne actually) - was incensed = 'What KIND of quality Stenning, was it good, bad, what was it? You cannot use 'quality' on its own!', he fumed.
Here we are some considerable years later and from my experience, I have witnessed countless examples where the word 'quality' is used on its own as in 'It's real quality', language having morphed to encompass its shoddy usage.
We live in an age where language is changing, my eldest daughter says 'sound' a lot to illustrate something acceptable. However;
This pales into insignificance when you can actually quote from a dictionary. Here try this from dictionary.com;
Footage: a motion-picture scene or scenes.
The supplied link took you to moving images, 'footage' being the generic word for said genre, regardless of source. I note you use the term 'electronic camera' - in that it was powered by electricity, they still use clockwork, or hand cranked image recording devices in some retail establishments? Perhaps you in fact mean 'digital'? |
so the whole point of this was to correct someone for not paying attention in english? or was there another point to it? all i get from what he said was that he was talking to someone about new footage from the pentagon crash, but theres nothing conclusive yet, meaning he either hadnt found the footage or seen it yet or nothing in the footage that shows it. what was wrong with that? |
Hi Marky - nothing wrong with it at all - just some mild lexicon-related ribbing on my part is all.
I'll apologise to the moderators for wasting their bandwidth forthwith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ah, was gonna say, i was sat here for a while wonder what your ponit was lol. doh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | marky54, I was responding to this - the third post down;
Sir,
This video imagery is from an electronic camera. There is no 'footage' (a term derived from the film industry - which is known to use rolls of film) to be seen at all here.
I feel I should advise you that others might decide to take issue with your inaccurate merchandising under the Conspiracies Description Act (2001).
And if you must insist on describing it distance-wise, I would suggest instead using nanometres.
Hope this helps. |
ah i see, sorry for the mistake, and dont understand what inaccurate merchandising you talk off or how it could be a crime to simply make a mistake? are you saying that law would apply to any innocent error? it sounds like another freedom out the window that you sound proud of. so if you say something that i find not to be fact are you a criminal? madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| and who decides what fact is also? if you get part fact correct part wrong what then? and what if you get facts right but told there not because those higher up want to hide them? this all sounds like a mad mad world. i can understand correcting people but criminalising them? and what if our leaders dont tell facts? you know like saddam having links to al-qeada stuff like that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | marky54, I was responding to this - the third post down;
Sir,
This video imagery is from an electronic camera. There is no 'footage' (a term derived from the film industry - which is known to use rolls of film) to be seen at all here.
I feel I should advise you that others might decide to take issue with your inaccurate merchandising under the Conspiracies Description Act (2001).
And if you must insist on describing it distance-wise, I would suggest instead using nanometres.
Hope this helps. |
ah i see, sorry for the mistake, and dont understand what inaccurate merchandising you talk off or how it could be a crime to simply make a mistake? are you saying that law would apply to any innocent error? it sounds like another freedom out the window that you sound proud of. so if you say something that i find not to be fact are you a criminal? madness. |
Conspiracies Description Act? I mean, c'mon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | marky54, I was responding to this - the third post down;
Sir,
This video imagery is from an electronic camera. There is no 'footage' (a term derived from the film industry - which is known to use rolls of film) to be seen at all here.
I feel I should advise you that others might decide to take issue with your inaccurate merchandising under the Conspiracies Description Act (2001).
And if you must insist on describing it distance-wise, I would suggest instead using nanometres.
Hope this helps. |
ah i see, sorry for the mistake, and dont understand what inaccurate merchandising you talk off or how it could be a crime to simply make a mistake? are you saying that law would apply to any innocent error? it sounds like another freedom out the window that you sound proud of. so if you say something that i find not to be fact are you a criminal? madness. |
Conspiracies Description Act? I mean, c'mon.... |
anyone know if you can check this law and its content on the web? its been kept so quite i never knew it exsisted, and strange how it was made in 2001. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
