The big clue everyone missed (Banned from google&youtube)


Size : 61.51 MiB (64495866 Bytes)

This I seed only up to 3 to 1 ratio.
After that, its your job.
Don't ask me to seed back more.
This file is so small,
you can easily do the same; A 3 TO 1 RATIO!
Am no-one's mother here.
Stand-up, and you won't be dominoes.


911 - The big clue everyone missed (Banned from google&youtube)
General 911 - The big clue everyone missed (Banned from google&youtube).avi Format












: Google Video Format/Info










: Hack of AVI File size











: 61.5 MiB Duration











: 9mn 40s Overall bit rate







: 888 Kbps
Video Format












: MPEG-4 Visual Format profile








: [email protected]/* */ Format settings, BVOP





: No Format settings, QPel





: No Format settings, GMC





: No warppoints Format settings, Matrix




: Default (H.263) Codec ID











: divx Codec ID/Info









: Mainly used by Google Codec ID/Hint









: DivX Duration











: 9mn 40s Bit rate











: 747 Kbps Width













: 480 pixels Height












: 320 pixels Display aspect ratio





: 1.500 Frame rate










: 29.970 fps Resolution










: 24 bits Colorimetry










: 4:2:0 Scan type











: Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame)






: 0.162 Stream size










: 51.7 MiB (84%) Writing library








: Lavc51.7.0
Audio Format












: MPEG Audio Format version








: Version 1 Format profile








: Layer 3 Codec ID











: 55 Codec ID/Hint









: MP3 Duration











: 9mn 40s Bit rate mode









: Constant Bit rate











: 128 Kbps Channel(s)










: 2 channels Sampling rate









: 44.1 KHz Resolution










: 16 bits Stream size










: 8.86 MiB (14%) Alignment











: Aligned on interleaves Interleave, duration





: 26 ms (0.78 video frame) Writing library








: LAME3.97 (beta)
(file info extracted with MediaInfo. Free at Mediainfo.org)

Monday, March 5, 2007
If a crime were committed and immediately afterward "experts" appeared
on the scene claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have about it
what would you think?
Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:
1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that ... all » permitted commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge.
2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings #1, #2, and
#7 were brought down by controlled demolition.
A third significant anomaly has not been discussed, let alone acknowledged:
The reporting by the major US TV news networks in the first few hours immediately
after the attacks.
Specifically:
1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US
philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.
2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely
formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers
and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.
3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.
How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquiry
- appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part
of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?
Were these stories prepared in advance?
There's an old intelligence saying that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."
Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they'd done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.
Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very least these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major US news networks.