A french user has just had his/her post deleted while I was translating it... :blink:

the original post :
La Vidéo De Toutes Les Véritées ? Bonjour, Je suis un jeune Français de 18 ans qui vient partager son opinion sur cet évènement tragique du 11 septembre 2001. Je sais pas si cette vidéo à déjà été diffusée mais je la poste quand même pour avoir votre opinion sur cette cassette. Je viens de la découvrir sur le site LiveLeak est je l'ai postée sur le site de partage Youtube pour avoir un avis global. J'ai réussi à récolter qu'un vote négatif donc je me posais des questions sur les origines de cette vidéo et de ce qu'elle pouvait montrer. Lien vers Youtube Merci de donner un avis sur cette vidéo et sur votre analyse. Bonne année 2008 ! tongue.gif

The ( not so great ) Translation :
Video Of All Videos? Hello, I am a French young person 18
years who comes to share his opinion on this moment tragic of
September 11, 2001. I do not know if this video has been discussed but I post it and would like to to have your opinion on this
cassette. I have just downloaded it from the LiveLeak site is I have it
posted on the site of Youtube division to have a total opinion. I
have réussi à récolter that a négatif vote thus I put questions
about the origins of this video and of what it could show. Bond
towards Youtube Thank you to deliver an opinion on this video and
your analysis. Good année 2008! tongue.gif

The video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpURc0luXoM

It is sad IMO that people do not make an effort to understand what others are saying merely because of a language barrier... < shakes head >

edit to add : And apparently his/her user account was deleted... when will you realize that 911 was a global event, and WE have allies globally ? < shakes head again >

Oh oh ! It's great ! I see the mentality of this forum. No, but wait, delete a profile because it takes not bother to use the language of Shakespear ... What is this behaviour and your prejudices about the allies of the United States?

Even though I speak your language I understand that the French are not well because they came not want to follow the movement from the United States to Iraq? With President Bush as there's no reason to be proud of your country and your values ...

Explain yourself correctly without using censorship alternately arm.

Please do not be so quick to go on the defensive, it is likely whoever the admin who removed your thread did so because they thought, in honest mistake, that it was spam - of which we get a great deal here, and in other languages.
As i said it would have been an honest mistake, the admins of this forum are all good people.

I do wonder though why you would post in French when you can both read and write good English - especially when you can already see the forum is all in English.

peace.

Except that we, the French, have the habit of receiving American who write in their native languages, and we offer him an answer in the same language. You start not to ban a user because it does not start to lose body in an incomprehensible gobbledygook for other users.

It is always the "frenchies" who must try to understand and answer in English to suit your needs. It could change for once, not everyone has the chance to speak English.

Finally short, goodbye.

Nous connaissions déjà ce vidéo par ici.. la version originale obtenue par la loi sur l'acces à l'information en plus, pas seulement un extrait de bulletin de nouvelles.. ;)

On n'y voit pas l'avion car le point-de-vue offert par cette camera ne le permet tout simplement pas...


....


Guys, if you ever need french-english translation, or the other way around, I can help... (I'm better than babelfish as well :P ) But to be honest there is nothing to discuss here other than the video doesnt show any flyover...

Seems he's overreacting a bit.. in typical french fashion :o :D

...

Southpark, si tu as des questions spécifiques ou bien si tu as besoin d'éclaircissements je peux peut-être aider, mais honnêtement il n'y a rien d'étrange avec ce vidéo, mis à part le fait qu'un avion de ligne a réussi à se rendre à cet endroit sans être intercepté...

On y vois quand même un point blanc se diriger vers le bâtiment juste avantl'impact. Même si il est sensiblement trop petit pour être un Boeing 747.

Un 757 c'est sensiblement plus petit qu'un 747... :)

Le modérateur a raison cependant, ton anglais est assez bon pour fonctionner sur ce forum... toute cette traduction complique les choses pour eux et aussi pour la vaste majorité des utilisateurs ici..

C'est quoi alors ?

Il faut que tu trouves à quel endroit cette caméra est positionnée pour comprendre qu'il est impossible de voir quoi que ce soit... il y a eu plusieurs discussions à ce sujet ici et ailleurs..

Je préfèrerais que tu fasses les démarches toi-même car on m'accuse déjà assez souvent d'être biaisé par-ici.. :)

Ce n'est rien de compliqué ou mystérieux...

Racer: welcome back. The more you guys jabber in French the more I'll need to ask you to re-translate. Brief summary of anything interesting pour favor!

Thanks for intervening, JFK.

And what were the original Qs about this video? I'm pretty sure it's authentic, from the Doubletree Hotel, FOIA release... I could dig up the details. It shows neither impact or flyover, nor the plane or Pentagon at all, just the fireball. It had raised freeway in between.

Basically, Southpark was wondering why the video doesnt show any plane.. I told him thats pretty much normal because of where the camera is located..

He then said that there appears to be a white dot instead of a plane.. So I told him to look carefully and understand where the camera is so that he can see for himself that this so-called 'white dot' would basically be hidden from view as well..

thats pretty much it..

This object :




Le point de vue est le suivant par rapport à cette caméra :

*Photo 1
*Photo 2
*Photo 3

Beau travail! :)
..et je suis sérieux.

I believe you're just about to be told by other people that the video is fake... but not by me...

What is bizarre is that this object appears in one fell swoop. If you look at the extremity left of the image, a few millimeters, there was no purpose ... I do not know how to explain it but it is not clear.

I think that most of what you see is video compression artifacts... I'm not saying there is nothing there, just that it could be exaggerated by the low quality of the original video vs the video compression process.

Remember that the plane has hit stuff before colliding with the Pentagon wall (tree, vdot mast, 5 lightpoles...) I believe that is what you are showing us. The smoke or whatever after-effects that were created when the plane began to hit various objects.

There is nothing at the extreme left because the plane was still intact at that point, even though we cannot see it, that is my opinion anyway..

I doubt whether a municipality. In the photos after the crash, the lightpoles are out of land, but there are few cases metres initials of their locations. With the speed of the aircraft announced by your government, it is impossible for either an external element to the object to which produces this explosion.


Perhaps an unmanned drone as reported earlier

That was difficult to understand.

Ce que tu dis c'est que les lampadaires étaient trop près de leur position initiale pour avoir été frappé par un avion se déplaçant a la vitesse annoncé par le gouvernement?

Mais qu'un drone téléguidé volant a vitesse réduite pourrait expliquer le phénomène?

------
english

What you are saying is that the lightpoles were found too close from their original location for them to have been hit by a plane flying at the speed indicated by the government?

Je dirais plus ta première proposition, la deuxième n'est qu'une hypothèse. Mais quand tu vois le trou que l'impact à fait sur 3 anneaux du Pentagone, y'a de quoi se demander si c'est vraiment un avion qui à pu traverser autant de béton armée.

ouais... on s'éloigne du sujet..

Il ne faut pas oublier que tout ça est pratiquement sans précédent...

On parle ici d'à peu près 100 000kg se déplaçant à plus de 850km/h...

Oui enfin avec le peu d'images que l'on n'a, on n'est bien obligé de se référencer aux résultats de cette impact. Tout est lié.

Je comprends. C'est vrai que l'on a un flagrant manque d'images et plus spécialement de vidéos...

Il faut comprendre que notre opinion importe peu. Le Pentagone ou le département de la défense n'a pas vraiment intérêt a insisté sur le fait qu'un avion c'est rendu à cet endroit.

Personellement, je crois que cela pourrait être la source de bien des explications. Il y a aussi certaines procédures et des façons de faire qui peuvent expliquer que l'information se rends difficilement à nous, ou bien souvent pas du tout.. ces chose étaient une réalité avant le 11 septembre en ce qui concerne la défense nationale et ce genre de truc..

Ta démarche semble honnête, peut-être tu devrais regarder du côté des témoignages et du reste des choses qui sont observable et qui n'existent pas qu'en théorie..

Je suis pas ici pour semer le trouble dans les esprits de chacuns. Je n'ahabite pas aux Etats-Unis et j'ai donc un regarde encore plus extérieur à ces évènements même si je l'ai est vu en direct de chez moi le jour du drame.

Mais bon, les preuves sont là, faciles à comprendre même quand on est pas un expert en quoi que ce soit, et le gouvernement Américians est connu et même reconnu pour réaliser des opérations pas très catholique.

Au risque de choquer l'Amérique puritaine, votre Président vous à enfoncé un poignard dans le dos.

:)

Je ne voulais pas donner l'impression que je te considérais comme quelqu'un qui veut semer le trouble.
Pour être clair, ma position c'est que d'une façon ou d'une autre ce qui est arrivé au Pentagone n'aurait pas dû se produire.

Cela dit, je ne vois pas le besoin de substituer des vrais avions pour des fausses, ni le besoin de faire semblant pour ce qui est du détail de ces attaques.. mais il faut avouer que je fais partie de la minorité qui pense comme ça, ici sur le forum..

Il n'y a pas beaucoup de représentant de l'Amérique puritaine ici B)

Ce qui nous fait pur c'est que note Président à l'air de suivre les trace du votre, un attentat sur la Tour Eiffel bientôt... pourquoi pas. En tout cas on ne sauras jamais vraiment la véritée.

That video makes it seem pretty clear that a plane didn't hit that building.

im not sure what the 3 pics are supposed to mean in relation to the "white object", BUT the white object is simply the side of a truck which reflects sunlight for a second. it is on the on-ramp getting on to the 395north traffic headed for the 14th street bridge.



mystery object solved. so whats the issue? what do the 3 pics mean or what bearing do they have on the "mystery object"? and when did french speakers start using the word "gobbledygook"?

:blink:

I wonder how good this Google translator works... :lol:

"I did not want to give the impression that I felt you as someone who wants to sow disorder.
To be clear, my position is that in one way or another what happened at the Pentagon should not have happened.

However, I do not see the need to substitute for the real airplanes false, nor the need to pretend with regard to the details of those attacks .. But we must confess that I am one of the minority who think like that, here in the forum ..

There is not much representative of puritan America here"

"What we note is that pure Chairman air monitor your trace of an attack on the Eiffel Tower soon ... Why not. In any case we do not really know the véritée."

The online translators often give out funny results.
The last posts were getting seriously off-topic.

Heres a proper translation of what you quoted:

racer: I did not want to give the impression that I felt you were someone who wants to cause trouble here.
To be clear, my position is that in one way or another what happened at the Pentagon should not have happened. (that sentence came out allright :) )

However, I do not see the need to substitute real planes for drones (..or nothing at all, or making them fly over buildings instead of into them, etc.. Im lacking an english word that would wrap up all that nonsense..), nor the need to fake everything when it comes to the details of the attacks... but I must admit that I'm part of the minority who happen to think like that, here on the forum...

There are not many representatives of puritan America here. (the french word 'puritaine' doesnt mean the same thing in english, In this case it meant 'overscrupulous'
or something along those lines..)

(pur was a typo, he meant: 'peur')

southpark: What is alarming us is that our President seems to follow in the footsteps of yours (Dubya... but is racer american? :P ), maybe an attack on the Eiffel Tower soon... why not? In any case we will never really know the truth.

---

I wont translate the other posts, IMHO there was nothing really specific or out of the ordinary after the post fedzcametogetme quoted...

A reflection? On what is it being reflected exactly? The camera lens?
This is one hell of a strange reflection, hundreds of a second before the final impact...

I'm not entirely ruling out your explanation.. but if this is a truck on an on-ramp I want to know who is this driver, because hes F1 material...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mseU9tpwxsA

watch the video and tell me the anomally that frenchdude is so mystified by, doesnt happen repeatedly thru out the vid: the sun is reflecting off the various vehicles up on the roadway.

after watching the gif. more closely, and watching the actual video again, i might tweak my earlier statement and say that the vehicle isnt in the merge lane, but perhaps one or two lanes further away from the camera.

but u can see this "phenomenon" happen several times through out the video, so i dont think its all that big a mystery. most of these other "flashes" go un-noticed, except for the most notable occurrence of such a "flash" (or reflection imo) which is at 1:49 to 1:50 in the above vid, right prior to the explosion/smoke. at first the shiny object appears to coincide with or even lead to the explosion, but if u watch it thru, whatever vehicle it was seems to reappear on the right just for a second until its blocked by the branches, and then it re-appears again after the trees are out of the way.

if the guy who posted the gif. would be so kind as to identify exactly when on the doubletree video his gif. occurs (and allow us to see the full view of that moment), then perhaps we might be able to see it (a moving vehicle) more clearly, for we might be able to follow its movement across the rest of the screen.

but without proper/full context, a moving truck, reflecting sunlight, is my best guess. and NO i didnt say the dubtree video is FAKE as u had earlier contended some might do. but so far i dont think there is anything anomalous about the gif frenchdude posted.

besides the french dude never said anything about what he thought it was, so im not even sure what he is claiming about this "object" other than that it is somehow unusual. but exactly how, i dont yet know.

perhaps u could ask him to clarify and be more specific about the gif. he posted. and just out of curiosity, what do u think his gif. shows, if NOT the reflection of sunlight off of a vehicle?

the french dude didnt seem 'so mystified' by anything... seems to me that he follows a pattern similar to many people that have only began to look at the evidence available... of course that means he has probably read questionnable websites and/or watched questionnable movies...

It first began as a 'no-plane' discussion and morphed into this 'white dot' anomaly thing.

I already said that most of the 'anomaly' is just a pixelated mess because the video is low-quality and heavily compressed. I was just baffled by the speed of that thing that is on his first youtube (in the OP) and his .gif...

To be honest, after watching again better quality vids, including your link, I prefer your explanation...

I'll tell him that and ask him whatever you want me to ask if he comes back..

to be honest with you racerx, i have no idea what this thread is about. i just re-read the OP and im the one who is mystified. i never did get the sense this was a noplane disucssuion, so i have no idea how we got here based on the content of the OP. i had no intention to derail the thread, i was simply responding to southpark's single post about the object in question.

and that response wasnt meant to imply anything regarding plane vs no plane, at least not where i was coming from. like urself i agree that the vid is so low quality that it doesnt really reveal much, so it isnt terribly helpful if indeed we are discussing the no-plane possibility.

but i apologize for my tone, i wasnt trying to be a dick, to u or to him. sometimes shit just comes across wrong when ur typing instead of speaking it. tone is the hardest thing to properly convey online, so although i was being smart-allecky, i wasnt trying to start a fight or be abrasive.

Just because americans despise the French doesn't mean we don't like the Tounge! (ie.. French Kiss) :P B)

The whole problem boils down to how we are relegated to low resolution videos and bad angles when there has to be confiscated video out there that tells the whole tale. And not to mention the cameras on the Pentagon. The confiscation just shows deceit and unwillingness to substantiate the official story. I stopped speculating about the pentagon when I found out about the planes pilot and the fact that no Hijack code was sent out.

De toute façon la preuve la plus probante reste celle-ci :

Sorry if I sounded like a jerk there - it was meant friendly-like. :)

For Southpark and anyone else: IMO the distance is nearly too far to have seen the plane at all even if we could see through the raised highway. Anything visible above that moving left-to-right must first be looked at as an effect of normal vehicular traffic there. I'm working out a video that shows the only possible such shape that coincides with the explosion - it continues on past that point as well, like so many other white blobs in that video, probably a semi truck airfoil or something. I'll post the results when I have the video done.

Okay, no video tonight, but if me and Fedz is in agreement here that's a good sign for above-the road plane evidence cool. If we're talking underneath the overpass, looking closer there is something unique there.

Location-wise, all that's visible there is the side of the next raised road. But a light seems to fill the space - just as a light that was catching the truck fades off. Then like six frames later impact. It can't be 'the plane' or missile or whatever but it could be light from it - a freak of refraction that sends a glint that way, off one thing and another and finally to the lens.

Plausible? Do light patches go by there at other times? I'm not seeing any...

You didnt sound like a jerk at all :)

Nice catch with the dimming and lightening stuff there..

I think 'plausible' is going to be as far as we're gonna get with this though, but you're right, it seems to be dark there apart from that moment.

By the way I checked and light shapes do move by off and on. This one seems brighter than most but I'm not sure. I'm thinking both above and below shapes are merely trucks, not any airplane or light from such. Maybe partly light...