2006 TV Fakery article on 911blogger.com
"Understanding TV fakery: a rational approach for those who can handle ...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3864#comment-158301
GONE!!!
I made a quick record before more "disappear". I saved a few blog entries, some are fun to read
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/2006-tv-fakery-article-on-911bloggercom.html
Question:
Are there any out there who still think this was a real plane?
1. The area of the building between the left engine and fuselage is intact.
2. The tail section is rotated almost 90 degrees.
what a waste of a blog
what a waste of a blog entry.
you know, you should ask this every single day just to be sure everyone knows your opinion.
Just ignore them...
These NPT guys are clearly wasting our time. Don't even acknowledge them. Don't call them names, don't attack them, just ignore them. Don't waste your time because they're never going to let it go. They'd rather focus on completely pointless "evidence" rather than PNAC, or OPERATION NORTHWOODS, or the Pentagon, or bombs in towers, etc... Just ignore them and stop wasting your time. Eventually, they'll get the message.
Email: Gideon524@yahoo.com
Website: myspace.com/911thebiglie
"2. The tail section is
"2. The tail section is rotated almost 90 degrees."
No, it's not. The most visible tale section is the right wing of the tail hit by morning sun. The top part is visible too, the left side is not.
Explain these 44 other video clips from different angles:
http://www.jonhs.net/911/44_clips.htm
This one clip debunks your theory.
just because the tail looks
just because the tail looks normal in some videos does not mean it is in all.
You said yourself that the left part is not visible.
I notice from this video that the tail section is not rotated like I thought (I will correct my blog entry), but the left tail does seem to disappear.
Aside from that, the building is still intact between the left engine and fuselage. How is this explained?
How is this explained?
How is this explained - you ask?
why do you ask when the answer upsets you and leads you to lash out at people?
If this is an honest question - then you need to accept honest respectable answers.
My honest OPINION is that this is all the product of an organized disinformation campaign.
The planes were real. Your questions are fake.
Look at a proper video of
Look at a proper video of the clip:
http://www.jonhs.net/911/second_plane_hit.htm
So, for the sake of argument: if there was no plane, they first blew up the outside wall in a form of a plane and then blew up the inside of the tower and simultaneously also made an engine fly off into the street. (You can see the engine fly off better in other clips.) And then they put the a fake plane into the clip, forgot a wingpart, and then also edited hundreds of other clips confiscated from people who filmed the towers... ??
News caught the hit live as it happened... so they must have filmed the explosion, then added the fake plane into the clip, and then reported it with a delay to the public, who saw it live...or how do you explain it all?
Have you thought this all through?
for the sake of argument,
for the sake of argument, elements of that could be what happened. But the exact story need not be figured out at this time. We all agree the towers were taken down in a controlled demolition, and we don't need an answer to "how did they plant bombs without anyone seeing it?" It's a matter of simple science. (We also don't need an answer to "where are the people?" with regard to the passengers.) Can buildings collapse in that manner from anything other than a controlled demolition? Obvious answer: No. Same principle here. Can an airplane wing penetrate a building, completely disappearing into the building, and not have damaged the building?
Is this not
pretty much exactly identical to a blog you recently posted? Don't you think that's rather abusive of the whole blog system?
Could you guys be...
ANYMORE obvious?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Hmmmm...
Let's create multiple blogs, all about the same thing, because when you create a new blog, it gets put on the front page of the blog list. That way, the theory that no one cares about, and makes the movement look crazy, gets a lot of exposure, creates division within the movement, and the best part, it diverts people's attention from real activism.
What you do is the equivalent of me posting my Pakistan and 9/11 blog repeatedly. Every few days...
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
LOL, the only thing "fake"
LOL, the only thing "fake" around here is CB_Brooklyn! How much are they paying you shill, enough for your soul I hope?
I see the usual suspect...
have gathered to attack, ridicule , divert attention but never to answer the question. I believe CB's question was: "Do you think this (plane in photo) is a real plane?". A straight forward question regarding a single frame of video. Surely such highly trained cointelpros can handle one little frame of video. Gold? Styles? Albanese? anybody?
Why analyse one single
Why analyse one single grainy, fuzzy frame made into a jpg-image by someone unknown when there tons of other material?
The image of the plane in that image looks like a real plane. to me. The area between the plane and the tower, on the other hand, is strange. But it's only a one fuzzy picture frame. The video looks completely normal.
'Like' a real plane?
And? The question was: is it a real plane? inside a self-repairing building? Can't you do better than "grainy, fuzzy frame...by someone unknown"? Like the CNN DVD ? And the "strange" area "between the plane and the tower" . What is that? Sure looks like the building, doesn't it? It just doesn't act like a building just hit by an airplane wing traveling at 450 mph. Those darn buildings.
Alternatively,
the people who are interested in NPT/vf could hunt down better evidence, and better images, and present that to the 911blogger public, instead of the SAME crappy-res frame, over and over and over...
Do shills get union breaks?
around and around they go but never to the question. Is it a real plane ? One image, one question.
Oh my god, thank you!
You have no idea what you just did. That was the first time ever anyone at 911blogger implied I was a shill. That's, like, an incredible milestone for me. Cue the Jeffersons' theme song, please. Damn, I wish I still had that bottle of champagne.
Here You Go...
Click Here
_________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Man, you rock.
...sniff...Jon...I'm touched...
Heh...
Great show.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Well rub my nose in it why don't you.
Now I'm jealous.
casseia, I agree with you
casseia, I agree with you on this. High res photos (and AVI videos) straight from the CNN DVD would be better than compressed jpeg and flash animations from youtube
Submitted by CB_Brooklyn on Tue, 10/17/2006 - 6:23am.
jonh and his 44 fakes fails
jonh and his 44 fakes fails to address how the wings survived the steel grated front and the nose tip which emerges in a variety of shots include the live broadcast by Foxnews. These aren't artifacts of jpg compression but physical violations of reality.
On closed minds and reality
"To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." Regarding the apparent "contradictions" with known physical reality in the image above, we must conclude that the building is real and the plane is but a CGI. For more see: WESCAM. Critical thinking- it's not just for breakfast anymore!
Where is this still from?
What video is this still from?
CNN DVD 'America Remembers' has this video.
I believe other dvd's may as well. Easy to watch frame-by-frame. There are numerous 'problems' with the alleged airplane, but pre-impact through disappearing inside the building is especially interesting. Step right up! See the self-healing buildings!
John, regarding the America Remembers DVD,
many computer DVD player software have a feature to capture an image from the screen. Software like powerDVD and WinDVD. (I was gonna post this in the other thread where had asked, but can't seen to find it right now...)
MORE INFO:
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/08/ts-ts-carmen-taylor-ua175-photo-and.html
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/08/911-conspiracy-theories-challenge.html
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/911-theodolite-battery-park-third-page.html with further links
911 Video Footage of the Planes Striking the WTC was Fake
fake footage | tv fakery | tv-fakeryTragedy can teach us many things. Some of the lessons we draw from September 11, 2001 are surprising.
For starters, jets flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings make no noise on impact. This is verified with two sources. If you rent the Naudet Brothers’s documentary “911”, fast-forward the tape to where the firemen investigate the gas leak. Seconds later Gedeon Naudet presumably shoots American Airlines 11 (AA 11) flying into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). We hear the sound of the plane. We hear the explosions. We hear people yelling with astonishment. However, there is no audio of the impact.
Let the insults fly.
DZ ... I declare this a censorship free zone.
This comment-section will not be moderated
read it at your own risk.
--- Foul language is to be expected. ---
(There needs to be free discussion. It regularly needs to INCLUDE abuse... Abuse is one way to find out HOW SERIOUS people are. Good Abuse does NOT equal bad abuse!)
you can quote me on that, MFs
No NEED to read the article
I forgot to say..
Now that is cleared up.
THERE IS NO NEED TO read the above article anymore.
Move, on, nothing to see here...
ZeRRoX told us everything there is to tell.
Like, when the missing left stab re-appears, all is well.
There is NO VIDEO FAKERY if at least SOME FRAMES contain the whole image. You just need to imagine missing left stab to be in EVERY frame.
NPT fanatic
You have explanation for everything, missing frames are due to compression. Or fakery, which is more probable.
Unless you analyze original uncompressed footage you should be silent about missing frames.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!
wow
The sound of "explosion" is sound of impact. This is obvious :)
Maybe, you have corrupted audio track of that video. It has a correct sound delay too.
And I´m glad you have found your missing left stab of the 2nd plane, it´s clearly seen on the picture you posted. It´s just another angle.
You have debunked yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!
> The sound of "explosion"
> The sound of "explosion" is sound of impact.
Oh wow, So there is no bang before the boom!!
Thanks for clearing that up!!
> This is obvious :)
I feel so ashamed.
> Maybe, you have corrupted audio track of that video.
> It has a correct sound delay too.
My fault.
> And I´m glad you have found your missing left stab
> of the 2nd plane, it´s clearly seen on the picture you
> posted. It´s just another angle.
Oh, how wonderful that you tell us it is another angle!!
I feel so relieved now, ... now that you, the expert, gave us the definitive word.
> You have debunked yourself.
Thanks for pointing that out. DebunKING is KING.
But you are the emperor!
Thank you.
This I call an EGO-BOOST.
Thanks again from such expert, I´m honoured.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!
its not funny, u2r2h. your
its not funny, u2r2h.
your theories bear all the hallmarks of a true 'conspirac theory'. the first one that comes to mind are the thousands of agents that would have been needed to pull this off. this takes 911 back to where some people want it to be, in the conspiracy corner for crazy paranoid people.
now, i have no problem accepting other views. but, its kinda supsicious that all the no planers have something in common. they like to fight and cause arguments about the same thing over and over.
WHY?
see, i have taken the time to look at that no plain stuff that gets posted here , but, sorry, it wasn't worth it.
as someone else already pointed out, as long as you are analyzing such compressed pics, its quite simply pointless. Study the effects of image compression first.
New Theory
"no bang before the boom" this is ridiculous. I thought all the time , that it was sound of the impact.
We should call an expert, who knows how does jets flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings sound, as a judge.It shouldn´t be hard(sarcasm).
We need unbiased one(Nico is out).
------
NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".
yep it is ridiculous. Its
yep it is ridiculous. Its not as simple as u2.. looks at it.
You have to take into consideration:
- the time between the impact and the boom
- the time it takes for sound to 'travel'
- high-pass filter that probably was active during recording. (as it is very often for location recording)
- and a gazillion of other factors, we are talking about *massive air pressure* here, not hi-fi speakers playing two sounds with a few millisecs inbetween.
its not surprising at all that the sound becomes one big bang, and not an impact-boom and then a fireball-boom.
Knocking an idea without investigating = IGNORANCE
The SECOND plane video is faked. ... seriously.
You guys need to overcome the IGNORANCE STIGMA.
You even profess not reading the actual arguments.
You simply dismiss without investigation.
I can help:
Think about the logistics. How would YOU pull 911 off?
1) Without a second passenger 767 its far far easier.
2) any computer-trickery improves efficiency (less people, more targeted effect)
3) A few well-placed items will BUMSTEER everyone. The COVER UP is greatly expedited
OK, you are still NOT SOLD.
How about money.
It would be MUCH MUCH cheaper.
OK, still not.
How about visual evidence:
![[Image]](http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175-Dateien/image042.jpg)
Oh I forgot.. .. its all result of video copmpression.
You KNOW the mathematics of video compression and you can say this FOR A FACT... to doubt is to be deluded.
YOU DID NOT READ 1) ... you did not understand it. you did not even make a serious effort.
Marcus Icke worked on this for days and days...
and he is dumb, and you are clever.
Thats why you can dismiss it in ONE SECOND.
The american way. We all live in America ...la la lala
it´s not about ignorance
Ok, I think we can both agree, that for such analyses you NEED ORIGINAL FOOTAGE !!!
If other experts review your work and come to the same conclusion, I will say its faked. Obtain the original footage !!!
------
NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".
Get back on your meds :)
Come on, u2, what's up? No longer satisfied with getting Chris' panties in a bunch, you've decided to try to rile the general population of blogger? Are you that bored? I say this because you've posted two entries in the last couple of days that are about as inflammatory to the discursive environment here as it is possible to get.
A lot of us -- myself certainly included -- have investigated the claims of "tv fakery." For me, it was about two things: curiosity, and not wanting to be a hypocrite by dismissing something out of hand. I am not convinced. I am not even convinced it is an avenue worthy of time and effort on the part of researchers, let alone worthy of continual prominence on page one of the "tracker" feature. When the Scholars' group publishes the promised peer-reviewed papers, I will certainly read them. In the meanwhile, when it comes to weighing first person accounts such as John Albanese's against the very crappy res videos continually put forth, I'm going with testimony.
Premiere:
LOL! that is the most
LOL! that is the most ridiculous 'no-plain-proof video' ive seen so far. That looped statement , oh my god. talking about brainwashing. And the music at the end is just , well, ridiculous.And that image-overlaying ..##?? And yea i know, the music is not important, but its the only thing in there worth writing about, cause its at least kinda funny.
Applause! Yet again, this
Applause!
Yet again, this mirrors entirely a post I made on another site about the audio.
Really guys c'mon, the KISS principle is writ large over this.
What would have happened if the "plane" had missed it's intended target, hit a heavily populated area?? No we can't have that!!
Impossible manoevers at incredible speeds by an untrained pilot. That would never fly!!
What if the "hijack" didnt go as as planned, if the passengers had regained control?? Couldnt have that!!
What if the "crash" didnt go as planned, what if the hijackers and passengers had survived the crash into the building? Not beyond impossibility!! Couldnt have that?
What if the pilot got lost and flew around for hours looking for the target with NO intercept?? That would look dodgy. It already looks dodgy.
And how would they find the New York from 35,000 ft? Did they just look out the cockpit windopw and there it was?
The "plane scenario" has too many "hows" and "what if's" ? There were too many things that could go wrong.
And we all know that the BTS says the flights didnt take off.
We know that the passenger lists are fake, and that the FAA say that the UA planes are still flying and the AA planes were'nt AA planes.
How much more do you need?
Hey how about we load the towers with explosives? A couple of fake planes for the TV, we have some at the Pentagon from a war games scenario. We could have some smoke and mirrors at the Pentagon also, a drill maybe? And we need some heroes - passengers regain control and take the plane down in Redneckville, Penn. We have a good hole in a field out there we could use!
Do you think the goons will buy it?
We have to try or we are f*cked. Remember the inauguration parade?? The stolen election?? That war we are supposed to start??
well, theres a "simple"
well, theres a "simple" solution for all the problems with planes that you list. And that is remote controlled planes. For sure simpler than 'tv fakery'. And it doesnt require 2999 agents across the media, not to mention all the eye witnesses.
Remote control planes are
Remote control planes are extremely hard to fly. Even harder to fly at low altitude in a city full of skyscrapers.
The media are bent.
Hey, they went along with the Kennedy asassination bullshit, my blind grandmother could see the frame up!!
Just to remind you what an airplane actually looks like.
It could be fake - what is the problem?
Yes. The plane looks fake to me. Who knows?
Whatever your perception is as to what hit or didn't hit the Towers, it's not important right now.
What is important is to awaken others to the betrayal and ruthlessness of these individuals who instigated this attack on their own nation.
Please don't get caught up in the details of what exactly happened at this point. Sure, its important, but that should not be our priority right now.
The issue we need to keep focused upon is is not HOW they did it, its WHO did it.
We know that this Administration was closely involved, primarily by their continuing to lie, block investigations, stack committees with their buddies to block investigations and in essence do whatever they can to stop the facts and the truth from being revealed.
What I believe is important is ENGAGING OTHERS. We need to inspire conversation, create interest again and talk to others about what really happened and how it affects all of us, and why its important for them to get involved in what their government is doing to them.
We need to continue to awaken and arouse interest in this subject. about the governmental/White House lying to American citizens and instigating/allowing the murder of over 3,000 citizens to take place and to blame the attack on the Muslim community so this Administration and Military Industrial Complex can go on a killing spree in the Middle East.
A grotesque, evil plan that has blamed innocent people and incarcerated hundreds more for something this Administration was involved in.
That is what is important at this time.
If the planes were faked. Fine. We'll get to that. LATER.
I told you before, i tell you again!!
TV fakery is THE ONE issue that will start the revolution.
Joe Sixpack can relate to it!!
We will win if tv fakery is pushed into the mainstream.
think of it this way:
What is essential to the war on terror?
Mind fuck!! the only thing that they cannot do without
is perception management.
For those who need more proof of TV fakery:
here the reminder:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ggua1...
Of course, if you don't care to read, much less understand...
this will not be proof to you... but others, who DO READ.
Craig the NYPD who spoke sunday the 10th
Yeah, he said he saw a person squashed by an engine, and this guy is dying from pulmonary fibrosis from the toxic dust down there. So I'd have to say he's right, and you are a fool.
P.S. Remote controls WOULD be more feasible
How stupid can you be seriously?
Do you think by remote control he mean the chimp with a remote control?
Try laser guided GPS, again way more likely a cenario than the TV fakery.
I'm going to frame the same question I did to nico and everyone else who obsesses over this nominal area of 911.
EVEN if it's true, how effective would this area of research be in waking up the general population?
Do you think in the average american's mind it will hurt or help our case?
If you can't answer
It won't
and
hurt
you are mentally retarded, or have forgotten just how far corroded americans reality lines are from actual reality.
PLEASE show this one WIDELY
PLEASE show this one WIDELY *before* the 7nov06 'elections' ..
http://torrentspy.com/torrent/877621/American_Blackout_Disenfranchisemen...
Interesting Videos & Information on TV-Fakery. (Have a look!)
TV-Fakery and the No Plane Theory are two separate entities.
TV-Fakery merely claims the MSM broadcast videos were computer generated, as they defy physics. (Whether there were real planes or not isn't the issue in this post.)
-
See Nico's Bizarro Planes for numerous anomalies.
- This page shows the Wing in Front and Behind Building and disappears!
- The Real Plane vs Cartoon page shows differences between the suspected tv-fakery planes and known real planes using MatLab software.
- See here for some Proof That Blue Screen Technology Was Used to Fake the 2nd Plane. Many videos and much information!
- 911Chronology.com- Nico's Timeline has important information as well, including a history of CGI on TV.
A real commercial aircraft after a crash:
I don't know who is going to win this war ultimately
will 9/11 Truth prevail?
I do not know.
But, should the day arrive when the lid is blown off 9/11 and public trials - similar to Nurenberg (spelling?)- take place, I can only hope that Nico Haupt will be dragged in front of a jury of his peers(?) and judged on his complicity with the perpetrators of this crime.
Disinformation and propaganda can be as deadly as guns and bullets. See Nazi Germany.
are you saying all the
are you saying all the videos he and others put out were manipulated to "look" fake?
added: if that is what you're saying then the burden of proof is on you to prove they're fake.
Tv-Fakery is based on physical laws... i.e. it's not physically possible for an aluminum airplane to glide through steel/concrete like it glides through the air. Your comment above is completely illogical.
Nope
I am saying the entire line of research should not even be dignified with a response - other than to point out that it is without any merit - and seriously damages this movement.
What if someone puts out a website claiming little green men flew the planes? should i spend time debunking that?
should we entertain EVERY theory - regardless of merit?
The premise itself is so patently dishonest - and utterly lacking in common-sense - so devoid of merit - that wasting time to review grainy videos is a waste of everyone's time.
if there's real evidence
if there's real evidence that little green men as you call them, flew the planes, then yes, time should be spent debunking it. I know of no such evidence though.
TV-Fakery is based on physical science. Why do you say it has no merit? What is your reasoning for claiming this?
Why is it lacking in common sense? What's your basis for saying this?
it lacks in common sense......
......because i saw the planes with my own eyes. The first plane flew extremely close past my building.
Thousands of others saw it as well.
hundreds of amateur photographers caught it on film.
all i see in this line of "research" is silly distortions of video footage that is a total waste of time.
no planes?
utter garbage that should be squashed - just like the official story. a lie is a lie is a lie.
We are looking for witnesses
Everyone says there are 1000's of witnesses and I 've been looking for one for weeks.
So you saw an airplane go by? Where were you? What time?
I assume you are saying you saw it hit?
How did it look to you?
Thank you for your help in this important matter.
:)
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Let me get this straight.......
(giggle)
You can't find any witnesses who saw the planes????
(giggle)
Where are you looking? Boise, Idaho?
Just in my office alone i know 3 people who saw the planes.
IN my last office everyone who was in that early watched Flight 11 pass our building (at a very low altitude). It appeared to almost hit 1 Rockefeller Center (which was probably just our perspective) - and we all watched it hit the north tower.
15 minutes later was all spotted the second plane - albeit from a distance - and watched it hit as well. Probably 30 to 40 people.
Over the last 5 years i've probably met hundreds of people who have seen one or the other plane. my cousin was evacuated from the world financial center and saw the 2nd plane hit.
Funny stuff Peggy. YOu can't find any witnesses.... bwahahahahahaha.......(wipes away tear)
Where are your offices located John?
I have a friend who was a victim of the attack. He stayed at my house upstate to recover. He's lived in the downtown neighborhood right near the TC complex for over 20 years and knows many people there.
He intitally thought it would be easy to find witnesses since he figured there were "1000's" who saw it - just like everyone else assumes.
He's been asking all around and when questioned closely no one can say that actually saw the "2nd hit." Most people saw it on T.V. He's got other people asking around and eveyone was surprised to find that it's not as easy as people imagine to find someone. When the people who say they saw it are tracked down and questioned closely, it turns out they did not see it. I met such such a person at the 9/11/06. He intially said he saw the plane hit. And then we discovered from where he said he was standing he could not have witnessed it. Same with a friend of my son who said she saw it from Stuvyvsant HS.
So it'd be interesting to know. Where was your office located whereby you could see both hits?
Where is there such a vantage point? I am curious?
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
1st hit
We've been talking about the 2nd "hit" videos.
So I wasn't reading carefully enough and thought you meant you saw the "flt 175"
I believe something hit the North Tower (1st hit). Many people downtown heard that. My doctor for one and a lawyer friend I know heard it come over as well. They both say from the East.
These clips we've been comparing were to do with the South Tower.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Still interested
I'm still very interested to hear about the airplanes you saw, "with your own eyes."
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
in the past we have had
in the past we have had these discussions at length including postings of many eye witnesses commenting on film about seeing the planes, and eye-witnesses (and ear-witnesses) who wrote about their experiences in personal blogs, etc.
but these witnesses are always brushed off, so i dont see how gathering 200+ witnesses would matter to those who are so willing to brush asside any such evidence.
again i go back to my point. there is absolutely nothing that could convince those that believe no planes hit the towers of anything different. why? because any counter-evidence is brushed asside as manufactured.
hence my point about this entire arguement being more focused on perception than provable fact. although i do appreciate some of the comments in here which at least go a bit further than 'look at these photos they look different'.
Agreed DZ
but we must also seriously consider the possibility that the no-planers are cointelpro.
Yeah - I know that the cycle of accusations is injurious to this movement. i've been called a spy. nearly every activist i know in NYC has been accused - or suspected - of being a spy.
But, when you see something like this - that is so embarassingly full of shit - it is not unreasonable to question whether the entire no-planes movement is a very simple ruse to distract and discredit this movement.
no planes? i mean - what could possibly be more absurd? it is just TOO absurd.
plus - nearly every legitimate researcher i know is full of self doubt. i know i am. i have vascillated on controlled demolition for years.
but - THESE no-planers are suspiciously obnoxious and rightious about their beliefs - which makes them stand out. the ease with which they dismiss eye-witnesses that number in the thousands is just a little TOO conspicuous.
so - i do not think it is too unreasonable to question whether they are cointelpro.
I dont think they are all
I dont think they are all agents, but i do think they are being pushed by certain , lets call it 'forces'. they are certainly a perfect distraction-weapon.
A couple of points...
A couple of points about your claims...
CB: see the pictures, they prove it's fake, you have to prove the pictures wrong...
Jon A: I saw the plane with my own two eyes...
CB: You have the burden of proof, prove them wrong, you cant...
Jon A: I SAW THE PLANE!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
three points:
1.) Images are very easy to edit, I have yet to see a SINGLE image from nico that doesn't look doctored, he present a flash vid showing how he can make a plane disappear, and then expects you to believe he didn't doctor the image/vids that he shows as proof OF NO PLANES!!!
2.) This "case" for tv fakery would NEVER hold up in court, or a public debate.
What is the point of trying to prove something that has NO evidence execpt doctored videos + images.
If you cannot prove it in court, or prove it to those who know nothing about the truth, why try to prove it to US, the people who believe that there were planes...
3.) The idea that the plane couldn't break through the outer wall of WTC1/2 is wrong.
Try understanding the mass+velocity vs. mass+velocity.
What do you think the mass of the surface area was, where the plane hit?
Do you think that the surface area where the plane hit had MORE mass than the airplane???
Airplane had more mass, and was moving at 500+mph.
Even the designers of the WTC (not the corrupt one), said that if a jumbo jet hit the WTC, it would be like poking a hole in a screen. They understood that the hit would cause the outer wall to be damaged, and even destroyed, which is why the rest of the infrastructure was designed to compensate for the load transfer...
Clearly, these people DO NOT want this movement to succeed...
Mass
The "airplane" didn't have more mass than the building.
The steel girders around the perimeter didn't pop out. That means the entire mass of the World Trade Center South was behind that punch - if it happened as portrayed on T.V.
The "airplane" supposedly sheared off clean the steel girders. A 767 is made mostly of AL. And it's hollow. And it's designed to be light. In fact the 767 is *lighter" than the 707, which the buildings were designed to withstand.
As far as wanting the movement to succeed.:
We will never succeed unless people like yourself get over being so afraid to say, think or believe anything that is not "acceptable." That is the problem. Bowing to that kind of mind control pressure is not a way to solve our problem, it *is* our problem.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
The mass of the building is
The mass of the building is NOT in question, it is the mass of the outer steel beams and windows ONLY IN THE AREA OF THE PLANE IMPACT ZONE!!!!!!
The plane did not hit THE ENTIRE BUILDING, it only hit the SURFACE AREA of the wall that then left a plane shaped hole.
I have thought more about this in the last few minutes and came to some different conclusions...
If you read my new blog entry, you will see that I think that there were explosives in the wall, that allowed the plane to enter easily, and cause the flash that is viewable upon impact of the nose of the plane.
My point is this, parts of the plane should have entered the building easily, other parts should not have.
Both ideas,
no planes only explosives
and
planes - no explosives used in impact
ARE BOTH IMPOSSIBLE due to the evidence we have available.
that is incorrect
The mass of the building is NOT in question, it is the mass of the outer steel beams and windows ONLY IN THE AREA OF THE PLANE IMPACT ZONE!!!!!!
you are attempting to disconnect the building from the outer walls-- akin to disconnecting the nosecone from the tail section. you are treating to the outer walls section which was impact and the rest of the building as two seperate entities.
The plane did not hit THE ENTIRE BUILDING, it only hit the SURFACE AREA of the wall that then left a plane shaped hole.
again incorect. this analogous to saying when your toyota hits a SUV head on, only the mass of the front of the cars needs to be taken into account-- which is again incorrect. remember, the laws of physics do not care which object is moving and which is at rest in impact scenarios
..I think that there were explosives in the wall, that allowed the plane to enter easily, and cause the flash that is viewable upon impact of the nose of the plane.
this would require the perps to know ahead of time where the plane would hit and would afford VERY little room for error. you couldn't sell 9/11 with the plane hitting here and explosions going off down there...
OT but related, it is interesting to note which companies were located in each tower where the events took place and which were involved in insider trading:
![[Image]](http://xs302.xs.to/xs302/06254/wtc1.jpg)
![[Image]](http://xs103.xs.to/xs103/06273/wtc2.jpg)
(from DrDebug, who has a ton of research posted)
The impact left the building intact
The "impact" left the building intact - except for the area in the shape of the profile of an airplane.
If the impact was just in reference to a local area of the building hit, then why didn't the beams of the outer girders pop out or move at all? It would've been more localized had that been the case, but it was not. They did not. The entire building took the hit. And the "plane" supposedly sheared the steel girders cleanly.
Unless a small section broke apart to break//buffer the impact, the whole building's mass was involved. It all remained intact, held together, upon impact except for the "entry hole." All parts of the building are connected to all parts. It's integrated.
If that were not so, why would the whole building sway as a result of the event?
I agree with most of what you say, Janus. Steel girders are not prone to respond like butter.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
simpler point.
Outside of a debate on physics, a simple point.
What made the hole in the building.
Was it a plane.
If not, then what, explosives planted in the shape of a plane?
Then why not a real plane, with the aid of explosives?
Using autopiloting technology, they can determine exactly where they are going to send that plane, they DEFINATLY coul have known where the location of the impact would have been.
Sorry, Amigo! The burden is
Sorry, Amigo!
The burden is on YOU to prove that 5 year old video clips the Easter Bunny put up on CameraPlanet one night ARE REAL! Try to respond without the mythical "thousands of eyewitnesses" or the even more ludicrous "earwitnesses" - yes, there was at least one 767-type plane in the area that day - SO?
IOK
No problem to show up over
No problem to show up over there to testify against Albanese, Nic Levis and many others from 911truth.org, who blocked the evidence on controlled demolition for 4 years.
Same to ANSWER, United for Peace. If it comes to a 9/11 nuremberg, every 911truth.org activist leader has to be "dragged" over there to explain their sabotage.
Albanese is another rabid hangouter, hiding behind some pseudo anti-fascist slogans.
It is very convenient that he appeared back on the scene when controlled demolition and the "9/11 truth movement" reached mainstream and the correct details on 9/11 TV fakery are still oppressed, but gaining momentum.
Let's see what he wrote in 2004:
Crisis in America
America - Love It or Leave It
by John J. Albanese, ny911truth.org , CrisisInAmerica.org
I'm leaving it. I am sure that many of you have not read my editorials
- simply scanning them for nuggets of wisdom before deleting them. ..
...I have made a decision.
Adios Amigos!!!
Its been a distinct pleasure working with all of you. Stick a fork in
me - I am DONE!!
Look - it has long been my intention to place a time limit on my
involvement in 9/11 activism anyway. This decision has much less to do
with fear - than simply desiring a new life for myself outside of the
sickness that America has become. This is not all about 9/11 - or even
George Bush. The movie "Super Size Me" has had as much of an influence
on my decision as 9/11. Frankly, I am sick of this country's bloated
sense of self-importance, cultural entitlement and suicidal self-denial...
...I was never much of an organizer anyway. I have always felt that I
have been politically attempting to hold back the ocean with a broom.
Like it or not, history will wash over this country in its own time
and in its own way. And when the day of crisis comes, there are many
people - much more talented than myself - who will rise with the
waters to rise to whatever challenges the tidal wave of history will
bring. I for one intend to be far far away - and on higher ground..."
So?
that's weak - even for you.
so? i have quit this movement many times - in frustration and fear.
you edited my editorial to VERY CONVENIENTLY leave out my reasons why.
additionally - i never blocked CD. I have just always felt that physical evidence is not the strongest evidence to prove government complicity. this is a position MANY researchers and posters here share.
so?
no planes? TV Fakery? laughable. just laughable garbage.
Thank you for your
Thank you for your enquiry.
Specific enquiries about Sept 11 can no longer be answered from this user at this place, but if you send your enquiry to the world’s foremost Sept 11 researcher, Professor David Ray Griffin at davraygrif@cox.net he will be pleased to answer your questions.
i have quit this movement
i have quit this movement many times - in frustration and fear.
what are you in fear of? being portrayed as a wacko by the mcmedia? stop being afraid! if there was no merit to 9/11tvfakery it would be an easy thing to show that. why don't you do that instead of dismissing it out of hand? other people see you dismissing it out of hand and they assume that you know what you are talking about and so they dismiss it as well without looking into it on their own. in the meantime no one has yet proved that there were indeed real boeing 767s that did really hit wtc1&2. the only evidence to that effect are the video recordings of alleged ua175 and they are the entire point of contention aren't they? maybe a plane did hit wtc2 but even if it did it was covered over with bogus images of a 767. 9/11tvfakery proves mcmedia complicity in 9/11. dismissing it out of hand without looking into it does not change things, it only prolongs the inevitable.
why waste my time?
why waste my time debunking trash junk science?
i saw the planes. the first one - up close and personal.
thousands did.
hundreds of amateur photographers caught it on film from hundreds of different angles.
grow up.
in the meantime no one has
in the meantime no one has yet proved that there were indeed real boeing 767s that did really hit wtc1&2. the only evidence to that effect are the video recordings of alleged ua175 and they are the entire point of contention aren't they?
the need for proof lies on our side, not that of the already accepted common perception.. they don't need any proof, we do.
asside from that, no piece of evidence would convince some that a 767 hit each tower. there is no single piece of evidence that cannot be dismissed through some method or another.
examples:
impact videos - all fake
impact photos - all fake
debris photos - all planted
witness statements - all ops or useful plants
etc, etc.
this entire arguement is largely based on perceptions, and this opinion comes from someone who has read as much as he can on the subject, and who still even today routinely visits the blogs suggested/promoted by those that support the tv-fakery theory.
given that a majority of 9/11 skeptics who look at the material in turn do not find it convincing, it could easily be assumed that 99% of the public masses would find the material completely insane..
im not here to judge who is right, who is wrong, and i could really care less about anyone's personal opinions, but given the fact that other topics which are more highly supported can still be brushed off via 'debunkings' i cannot see how an opinion so highly based on perception and rejection of existing evidence can ever stand a chance at ever being widely accepted.
perceptions and opinions are a dime a dozen, what is important is what can be proven, and i havent seen anything yet along this line of questioning which comes close to proof, and which can't be brushed off as opinions or perceptions.
dz, I agree that the general
dz, I agree that the general public would consider it insane, which is why those within the movement need to learn about it first. But I disagree with your comment on "perception and rejection of existing evidence". Tv-fakery is based on physical science, such as the impossiblity of an aluminum airplane to glide through steel/concrete like it glides through the air.
The time has come for all theories based on physical laws to stop being ignored.
Last year. many in the Truth movement considered WTC CD insane. A couple years back, many would say.. "MIHOP? Are you crazy??" Now, these things are common sense to us all 
your statement of 'learn
your statement of 'learn about it first' seems to imply that those who disagree are willfully ignorant. i think another common assumption is that noone has looked at it, when in reality i think all of us have at some point just so we can be honest with our personal opinions, its just that the arguements proposed so far are not in my opinion very well laid out, and are a very long way from being provable, or even arguable, unless you are already of the perception that any and every counter-evidence can be thrown out (video, photo, eye witness, ear witness, etc.).
also, the suggestion that airplanes are aluminum makes some think of tin foil. i would suggest that to prevent any confusion you clarify 'aluminum' with 'aluminum alloy'.. there is a night and day difference.. i can punch a hole in aluminum, i would break my fist trying to punch through some alluminum alloys..
one point of confusion for me is that the arguement which you frequently aspouse is that an aluminum airplane couldnt glide through steel.. on one hand you are suggesting that aluminum is to weak to sever any of the perimeter columns, but on the same hand you seem to imply that the plane shouldn't have crumpled up and glided through the building.. which is it? also, where are the arguements for what it should have looked like instead of just the arguements which suggest it should have looked different?
a tangled web we weave...
here is a bit more information on aluminum and aluminum alloys: http://www.emachineshop.com/material/aluminum.htm http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=310. tin foil, beer cans, and canned soup are all made from aluminum (the can, not the soup), and as far as i know, aluminum baseball bats are made from an aluminum alloy. read the linked site for more specifics or google it up
one point of confusion for me is that the arguement which you frequently aspouse is that an aluminum airplane couldnt glide through steel...
i cannot speak for CB, but this point is what originally got me looking more at this issue. i have found ~4 videos which show the butterplane effect-- ua175 'melting' into WTC2 without slowing down, or more importantly, without any aircraft parts breaking off and without any impact force being distributed back through the airplane. you can find some AVI clips of the cheney hit and others at terrorize.dk. the fairbanks footage doesn't appear to be on that site, but is another good shot to show the butterplane effect.
please read this piece by Gerard Holmgren titled WTC Forensics and follow up by looking at Spooked's analysis which has been laid out over and over and over again. this is further addressed by Woods and Reynolds (still researching links to reynolds wrap) in the No Big Boeing section of their latest paper and by Killtown.
consider the two points i am trying to make:
+ birds punch through airplane wings (yes, even 767s) in midflight
+ 767 punches through WTC2 in midflight
does anyone see the physical problem there? laws of physics in impact scenerio do not discern between which object is moving and which is not. anyone who has attempted to explain this has only cited velocity and dropped and argument like, 'ua175 was traveling 500mph+, what do you think is going to happen when its going that fast!?'. i maintain that you cannot have it both ways. if you argue for a 767 punching thru WTC2 (as seen in the videos) then how do you explain the bird impacting the wings? i've heard all kinds of arguments about this, and each is based on speed. velocity is a factor, but density is more important. if one is going to argue that velocity is all that matter, i'd hope one could also address bulletproof glass and bulletproof jackets-- clearly there is more at play during physical impacts then just velocity!
bottom line, the point which pulls me into the NPT theory (and all variants like NPCT and NBBCT) is the physics of a 767 melting into WTC2 without a single piece breaking off. i would suspect to see a huge crumbled mess of 767 in the impact hole. while i do not think a 767 would bounce off WTC2 undamaged, but i do not believe a 767 could pass thru WTC2 outter wall like a cartoon running thru a wall.
TENSILE STRENGTH
of impacting and impacted materials is another key factor you'd have to add in on top of density, mass, and velocity.
I have seen this debate address the results from the UC Berkeley group--apparently an independent study-- and the other Persian dude, forgetting his name. These are two studies that both claimed to analyze the actual impact of the planes. Even if they're bullshit for whatever reason, this debate needs to include their findings and methodology.
Twist
eblips.net
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
of impacting and impacted materials is another key factor to include right along with tensile strength, mass, density, and ofcourse velocity.
there is alot of physics at play in the WTC1/2 events-- none of which i claim to be an expert in.
URLs for those studies
There's some interesting quotes in each of these that could be pulled out and tossed into the debate. They both appear to be government-funded or supported tho.
I think the TV Fakery question bears investigating, but personally I wouldn't talk about it with people at large. I tend to agree with Ruppert, GW & others that the physical evidence is too subject to arcane disputation between experts.
On the other hand, if TV fakery was involved, it radically widens and changes the terrain of the challenge. The level of media complicity deepens. It also alerts us to oncoming dimensions of ultra-high tech propaganda and psychological warfare.
Using military jets that looked rougly like 757s makes perfect sense to me. Probably much more manoeuverable. If you're going to try to pull off an evil stunt this huge, you really DON'T want to miss!
===============
Scientists and engineers simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
Researchers at Purdue University have created a simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what likely happened when a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html
September 10, 2002
New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail
Purdue News . – Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University have created the first publicly available simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what theoretically happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon last Sept. 11.
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
Nonlinear Steel Structure Simulation Provides Insight Into World Trade Center Collapse
"As part of a research study, funded by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), researchers from academia, government and private industry investigated the cause of the collapse of WTC building, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, under the Directorate of Engineering of the National Science Foundation (NSF), investigated the collapse of the World Trade Center. Dr. Astaneh-Asl's presentation included a movie of a simulated crash of a passenger aircraft onto a generic steel structure created with MSC.Dytran and MSC.Marc by the MSC.Software Professional Services Team."
http://www.mscsoftware.com/success/details.cfm?Q=285&sid=269
Twist
eblips.net
thanks for those links!
thanks for those links!
Dz when people think of
Dz when people think of "Conspiracy Theorists", they think of gorky looking nutjobs who are aroused by grainy video footage that flickers, and the "flickers" in that footage are then cited as "proof" of something nonsensical and ridiculous. That's what the smear weapon does to people, and certainly there are such individuals out there like these “no planers”, so the media do have something to cite when slandering with it. But my from my perspective at least 99.99% of 9/11 sceptics are normal mainstream people, who have commonsense and who want to expose the lies of 9/11 for many honourable, valid important reasons. Lies that most in the movement once also believed. We are not "Conspiracy Theorists", and so don't deserve to be labelled and smeared as such.
The likely perpetrators of 9/11 have massive influence over disinformation apparatus, they have corrupt or compartmentalised experts who understand the sociology and psychology of the public. So it's not unfair to assume that they know that people associate "nonsensical pointless over analysis of grainy video" with the "Conspiracy Theorist" stereotype. And so have instructed disinfo teams to propagate such bullshit as to dilute the credibility of genuine 9/11 sceptics. I recognise this no planes bunk as being either just that, or equally credibility damaging stupidity pushed by individuals who deserve the "Conspiracy Theorist" label. Or more likely a combination of both with the disinfo only being instigated and occasionally provoked by the perps, and then the useful idiots picking it up and pushing it mindlessly.
The truth movment has to confront not just the lies of the official version of events, and those who propagate them. But also the disinformation and damaging nonsense that maybe deliberately designed to slow and discredit us. You should not allow this shit on your site man, seriously. Would you have people posting warmongering neocon propaganda? Or insanity about George Bush being a shape shifting Lizard? Because the affect is the same.
Supposed Contradictions?
on one hand you are suggesting that aluminum is to weak to sever any of the perimeter columns, but on the same hand you seem to imply that the plane shouldn't have crumpled up and glided through the building..
Both.
Why is that contradictory?
Too weak to, not sever, but to cleanly shear, as portrayed in the Media clips.
The plane did not crumple, but entered the building whole, according to the CGI. No parts of "it" were seen in the Media clip to fall outside the building. Yet parts, which did not match those of a 767, were found in the street. As mismatched parts were found at the Pentagon. (God, they have no respect for us even to get important details right !)
Every planes' parts are individually numbered and records kept on them. All that had to be done was to match the parts found in the street with the known records - to make their case really tight.
"crumpled up and glided" seems contradictory in itself. The "plane" supposedly "glided" and then, out of sight, not just "crumpled up," but disintegrated whole. One cannot distinguish any wreckage by peering into the hole.
Shearing implies it is very hard. Glided implies the same. Crumpled up or disintegrated to dust implies not hard. These contradictions do not go against an argument for T.V. fakery. They imply it.
Am I missing something?
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
i dont understand which
i dont understand which clips could even possibly show whether crumpling occurred or not.. the majority of the films are shaky cams from some distance and typically shown with some massive zoom, which by itself introduces a bad loss of quality. but asside from that, we are talking about an object moving 500+mph, and cameras that record at 24fps.. i suppose if we had a high-speed camera that captured it at say 100+ fps then we could perhaps see some real detail, but frame by frame most of the shots show the plane moving 3-4+ feet per frame, so there is no ability to see with any real detail to what level crumpling occurred or didnt occur..
in any event, if you have any links regarding how the parts from NYC don't match the supposed flights i'd be glad to look at them..
also, at this point, if a warehouse was opened with all the plane parts and the serial numbers were correct, would that change your opinion at all? my guess is that at this point nothing could possibly change your opinion, which goes back to the perception issue.. at this point it is a matter of making a case that is sound and well put together, and that is the exact opposite of the majority of things i have read regarding this subject, which is why a majority of those who have actually taken the time to look into the subject still find it to be a weak arguement in contrast with the counter-evidence that is frequently entirely ignored.
Who's holding the hammer?
This is a game, that drives a wedge.
The sickest part... is that one obviously hammers on one item only, "The end all, be all, of factytruthyevidenceness." ...that one side, will even go so far to risk the alienation of others whom, to-date... put quite a lot out there.
At least learn one new song to break the monotony... it would help camouflage your pattern too.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
this is where you're
this is where you're confused. Read the first few lines in my blog.
btw, did you actually SEE the planes hit the Towers?
also, how do you explain this?
That's not even funny
What is that supposed to be? The Park Foreman video as faked by Nico?
You are losing the argument fast. That is a cheap joke. Clear off.
where is your evidence
where is your evidence that's it's a "cheap joke"?
are you going to argue now
are you going to argue now that 'nicos bizzaro planes' are real?
do i get to demand you to answer all my questions too? do i get to demand your evidence for everything you believe in?
i'm getting tired of this confrontational tone. it almost seems as though you enjoy responding to everyone with an accusational tone in the hopes of wasting all their time in making some response which you in turn will completely ignore.
Well John
You say you never blocked CD. Yet last Fall you told me you thought it was wrong and you didn't believe it.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
...and since then he has had
...and since then he has had the guts to admit he was wrong. That gets my respect.
I just remembered
It was last Spring, not last Fall. Now I remember. (Time is really slipping away from me!)
That's why I have to take his fighting with a measure of skepticism. He also insulted people's opinion then, who promoted CD. If he hadn't have done that, maybe I'd be more inclined now to take his insults to heart.
And really, should someone be commended for admiting they are wrong, when they are? Isn't that something expected? Even obligatory? Do they deserve extra respect for that? Isn't that just the normal thing to do? Would it be understandable if he never admitted it?
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
why do you keep posting and
why do you keep posting and visiting a site where most people just dont like you, to put it mildly. myself included. why dont you freaking fight against 'the enemies' instead reasonable people here?
go away ewing. people here dont want you and your dishonest ego-fight crap.
Don't read his stuff then
Why don't you leave? I don't think I like you.
:)
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
here's more
Overlay Shows Video Fakery
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Peggy, how did you embed
Peggy, how did you embed that youtube video? I can't seem to figure it out :(
you cant figure out how to
you cant figure out how to embed an object, yet youre sure youve figured out 9/11? Hmmmmm...
different angles
notice the buildings do not line up 100%.
basic laws of perspective. the larger the object the less pronounced a persective change of just a few degress will appear. in other words - the buildings appear relatively the same from a distance - but the plane appears to appoach from different angles.
basic laws of perspective. every high-school photographer knows this.
reminds me of the mentally retarded child who, riding in a car with his parents points at the moon and says: "Look, the moon is chasing us."
duh!
everything else outside the car appears to be moving - except the moon. The moon muct be moving.
or it must be TV Fakery!!
duh
john albanese ignores many
john albanese ignores many other evidences of 911tvfakery while loudly proclaiming that "basic laws of perspective. every high-school photographer knows this." as regarding that specific example. what about these?:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/7proofs/
why don't you quit flailing around blindly and focus on proving the existence of the alleged real planes that you are insisting were really there?
Yes, John... that video
is a perfect example of the idiocy and diversion that is being perpetrated by the TV Fakery gang. Thanks for posting that, Peggy. No verbal argument against the no-planers has been as convincing as your video presentation.
For those who never saw it, here's a blog of mine entitled
"99% of 9/11 Truthers Believe Planes Hit The Buildings"
which provides ample proof of the kind of insults, fuzzy logic and just plain lies used by the no-plane people:
http://911blogger.com/node/2390#comment
and what about this?
and what about this?
It's not required to be an expert to see this. :)
I see the buildings are approx., and very close to the same size in these clips. And line up very close to exactly precise. Maybe not 100% but close to 99.8.
In the two clips chosen for this comparison the size of the buildings, repectively, are close to exactly comparable.
But the main and salient point is that the viewpoint orientation is from dead on ~North. (As I've explained in other postings on this, North does not equal "Manhattan North" - which is 23 or some odd degrees from map North. Manhattan street grid is skewed.)
But actually, the distance of the viewer from the Towers is much less important than the orientation - for the purpose of comparing the trajectories of the two "airplanes."
But even if it wasn't, the camera/viewer is still positioned, either virtually or in real terms, from a close to equal distance in each clip. (I realize both these shots probably involved the use of a zoom. However, if the buildings are the same size in the image, the viewer must be virtually the same distance, zoom or no zoom. That's because even if you zoom, the proportions remain the same.)
I appreciate the comparison with the moon when driving in a car. However, the comparison is not accurate for our purposes. In your example the moon, a vastly more massive and vastly more distant object, is farther away from the objects that appear to move relative to it, which are closer to us. . (If any object near us were as far away as the moon, we would also not perceive them to move as we "passed them by" We wouldn't be able to see them at all!)
In the case of the two clips above, the supposedly more massive body is closer. And the objects that appear to move are supposedly farther, and are supposed to be moving out of the depth of field toward us.
And this brings up another discrepency I've pointed out in other postings: If your viewpoint is from the North side - as evidenced by being able to see directly in front of onself the the North wall of the tower, and none of either the west or east side walls - well then, how is the "airplane" visable coming from the ~south-west?. From that viewpoint ,straight on from the north, the north tower should obscure the approach, which is shown in some clips as coming from the direct South.
None of this requires an advanced degree in visual perspective. It's very basic. It is Kindergarten stuff. That's why I'm surprised people don't see it. But it was the same with the controlled demolition info.
Other clips show the "airplane" approaching from the direct south - without any descent involved.
Since the location in time can be determined by the "speed" of the "airplane," combined with knowing the moment of the explosion at the building is fixed, one can easily show that there is no explanation for some "airplanes" exhibiting a desent in the last second or two and for others to appear as though coming in on a straight shot, parallel to the ground.
The great size and massiveness of the Towers was attributable to their exaggerated height, not to their width. In terms of width, the size of a floor of the Trade Tower was comparable to the size of a 767. So the ratio of the sizes of the two comparible sets of objects, in the moon analogy, does not fit this example. Nor do the comparable distances.
There was nothing extraordinarly large about the widths of the buildings. Their height is what made them monsrous.
A 767 airplane would barely fit on one floor of the tower.
Another discrepency, which you will see between some of the clips, is that the size of the "airplane" doesn't match, proportionately, the size of the building. Since both the "airplane" and the building are the same distance from the viewer when the "airplane" hits, that discrepency can't be put off to different distances.
I digressed.
Back to the comparision in question: The differences in the trajectories and most especially the heights of the "airplanes": The tops of the towers are lined up even. There is in no way a discrepancy between the tops of the buildings in these two clips which is large enough to explain the differences in heights, of the presented "trajectories."
One "airplane" is descending as it approaches and the other is not.
That absolutely can't be explained by a real 767. At least one clip must be faked. The image of the buildings match up and are fixed points for the purposes of this comparison.
The argument that the buildings don't match up between the clips reminds me of the argument that sagging trusses were what caused the top of the buildings to explode. It doesn't make sense to me...and I really don't get the logic.
Yes, The buildings in the two clips basically matched. The "airplanes" didn't come close. There was a very little, perhaps teensy rotation between the two viewpoints which is so teensy as to no be discernable, but the rotation between the two "airplane's trajectories" is significant.
I first got clued into all this when I saw a posting from alt.astronomy where amateur astronomers analysed two still shots of the "airplane" approaching the South Tower.
There was a correction for rotation and for distance of observer. The towers were lined up. Astronomers are used to making these kinds of calculations to find out the distance of remote objects. The time factor was also corrected for in their investigation since the elaborated smoke clouds billowing from the buildings were precisely matched. The "airplanes" didn't match. Everthing else did.
For me, that was like the first moment I saw the video of Bld. 7 collapsing. I just realized when I saw it something stunk. The visualization triggered a recognition, later backed up through reading. But I knew from seeing it something was foul. This initail "ah-ha" experience has been backed up by further reading and watching of video clips extant.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
"It is Kindergarten stuff."
no doubt
I refer you back to my "retarded child in a car" analogy
same principal.
the buildings do NOT line up.
additionally - you provide no data regarding the distance and altitude of the two photographers in relationship to the buildings - therefore rendering your 'opinion' useless.
you simply rely on your relative judgement that the two videos "look" similar in persective. this is unscientific to the extreme - and laughable in that it is quite clear that all of this research is an intentional diversion from the truth.
The buildings do line up
I don't have to provide you with useless data.
Your argument is similar to that of people who won't believe controlled demolition until someone tells them the exact amount of explosives, and the exact kind needed, to blow up the buildings. And of course, if you did provide them with that, then they'd set you to some other crazy task before they would supposedly eventually grant their approval to your opinion.
You don't have to know the exact amount of explosives to know the buildings were taken down, and not by "airplanes!"
I don't need to know the exact location of each helicopter to know the buildings line up and the images were taken from a similar vantage point.
Yea, they look like they line up exactly ...Because they do...How "unscientific." ?!
Well, I guess if I see my hand right in front of me that's very unscientic too? Maybe I need an expert to confirm it?
I don't need a ruler, a Weatherman, or anyone else to tell me those buildings line up very well in that overlay. They line up adequately for judgment on the huge disrepencies in the "airplane" trajectories.
The comparison of the clips show the fakery.
You were wrong on controlled demolition. Both you and Nick were. And I'm not going to go along with you on this now just because you "say so." Or just because a majority here "say so," and make fun of it.
Is making fun of it the best anyone has got? Isn't that tactic what is used against our group as a whole to discredit us? Is snide laughter the best argument anyone's got?
Well I guess you just see things I don't see. And anyone who doesn't agree with you - even if they have well-founded reasons for that - is a "diversion from the truth." WOW.
I guess you just see things I don't see. As you conveniently "saw" Les Jamison as an "anti-semite." And keep smearing him for it. Which I never saw.
You can try to destroy me with slander like "retarded child" as you tried to destroy Les with the anti-semite tag.
When you can't get your way or express your point of view in a way that everyone agrees with, I guess then you bitterly name-call? And you do it all for "what is best for the movement!"
Does it ever help?
And I'm the one who is supposedly "destructive to the movement?!"
Not that I care to keep you from your hate campaigns. But don't you think it's something of a waste of time? No one asked you to come to this thread and name call.
As far as what is the altitude of the photographers: that's not going to change the fact that one CGI comes in straight and the other "loses altitude" as it comes in. If an "airplane" comes in straight, it going to look straight when it lines up with the plane of the earth and parallel to the plane of each of the floors of the building. That won't change with an altitude change of the viewer. Because the Trade Center is fixed and perpendicular to the ground, one measures the angle by which the "airplane" approaches, by that fixed measure.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Oh, no. Not you too,
Oh, no. Not you too, Peggy?!
I will say it again, this video by Nico proves nothing other than the fact that people are gullible and uneducated. It's the same kind of crap people use to claim that the moon landings were faked. Most of it is based on a lack of understanding (or willful ignorance) that a two-dimensional image or video is a projection of a three-dimensional scene.
In this case, the two videos overlayed were shot from two different points with different azimuths and elevations. Of course the trajectory of the plane in each of those two-dimensional videos will appear to be different.
If you still don't understand this, try this little experiment.
1. Close one eye.
2. Hold a pen, pencil or something similar in front of your face so that you only see one end or the other.
3. Close your open eye and open your closed eye.
What do you see? A different view of the same object. The claim in this video that the two clips are overlayed "exactly" is impossible, just as you can't "exactly" overlay the images of the pencil (or whatever you used) you saw with each eye. They are different views. Period.
that a two-dimensional image
that a two-dimensional image or video is a projection of a three-dimensional scene.
and yet here is a good example of such here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/03/video-the-terrorism-awards/
WTF?
You're not making sense.
"For the slow to learn"
The video he links to does a better job of simulating a 3-d plane impact than did whoever worked on 9/1.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
It's not Parallax, but that's a nice buzzword/Talking Point
I'm very aware of the Parallax phenomena, thank you.
The discrepencies between these clips are not caused by that. A parallax movement wouldn't cause one "airplane" to look as though it's descending and the other to take a straight hit. Sorry.
Also the descrepencies between the apparent trajectories are too large to be explained by a difference in the viewpoints. The viewpoint between the two clips barely moves. If it had moved enough to make that much of a difference (between the "trajectories" of the "airplanes,".)....on one or another of the clips you'd be able to see the East or West wall of North Tower.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
again - for the slow to learn.....
you say: "....the descrepencies between the apparent trajectories are too large to be explained by a difference in the viewpoints."
Yet you offer no data regarding distance, alititude of position of the 2 photographers. so - in effect - you are simply throwing out unqualified statements which you cannopt support mathematically or quantify scientificically. if just "sounds" good to you.
I would refer you back to the "retarded child in a car" analogy. I believe this still is a good starting point towards understanding "research" such as yours.
Yes, you can.
"just as you can't "exactly" overlay the images of the pencil (or whatever you used) you saw with each eye. They are different views. Period".
Yes you can. When you do that you just flatten the image. If you lose one eye, you don't go blind. It just flattens the image. And you can no longer see depth.
Unless a camera is a steroscope camera, made to make 3-d, it will function as a single eye and flatten things.
With two points of view you get more info, not less. (Put your 3-d glasses on, and you'll figure it out.) The two "airplanes" dont resolve into one image.....hence the conclusion. Fake.
This all has to do with how much trouble whoever simulated this had showing the object, the "airplane," approaching from out of the depth of field. And why so many people, from seeing the extant clips with a viewpoint from the North, don't naturally understand that the "airplane" supposedly approached from out of the depth of field -the South. And believe "it" to have come from the West.
Two viewpoints, if the "airplanes" were real, would remedy this. And you could "see" the 3D effect. But It was a bad cgi job. And it is not really realistic, if you look closely.
Don't be so quick to judge. Look closer.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
But Peggy.......
The retarded child would make the same arguement - claiming the moon is not real since it appears to not move in relationship to the car.
It is basically not the retarded child's fault that she does not have any math, distance or size statistics at her fingertips.
without this basic data the retarded child only possesses a retarded opinion.
do you get this perspective?
Sorry I don't get your analogy
I think you are someone who is schooled to think a certain way. You can't see what is in front of you, since you are trained to only believe what is approved.
Your analogy isn't even good. As I pointed out already,
When you were a child did you believe the moon wasn't real because it didn't move? Maybe "the earth is flat" is a better analogy?
I think the analogy is more to "The Emperor's New Clothes"
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
You have no idea how much
You have no idea how much time I have put into looking at this before judging it to be crap. Maybe you didn't see the post when Nico first rolled out this video. I watched it and commented that no attempt was even made to line up the towers in the overlay. Nico obviously read that and quickly uploaded a new version (the one you seem to find so convincing) where he did at least attempt to line them up and proclaimed they were "lined up exactly". But of course they can't be lined up exactly as John Albanese and I (and maybe others) have pointed out. I looked. I gave it a fair hearing. I looked some more. Sure enough, it's crap.
The bottom line is that you have provided no quantitative data regarding the position and angles of the two cameras (other than the 99.8 percent line-up factor you pulled out of your ass) and, as John Albanese has pointed out, are relying on your perception and/or feelings that it's "close enough."
"...Nico obviously read that
"...Nico obviously read that and quickly uploaded a new version (the one you seem to find so convincing) where he did at least attempt to line them up and proclaimed they were "lined up exactly". But of course they can't be lined up exactly...."
BCS talks nonsense. It's not a big deal to lign them up with the appropriate video editor. This is what i did in the 2nd version to make it more clear.
I didn't lign them up immediately (and still didn't in the first half of the second version) to show that *these* are 2 different clips and the view point the same (NOT the POV of the camera lense, which used a tilt and a minimal zoom)
If i would have ligned up from the beginning, people would have accused me to 'doctor the footage'.
I also left a minimal overlap in the second version to show that there are 4 towers at the same view point.
You also forgot to mention that i un-tilted and unzoomed.
Means, once you approve *that* zoom, you would see 2 towers, still aligned and STILL a contradiction of incoming flight paths.
I'm the one talking
I'm the one talking nonsense... that's precious.
CB, I couldn't get Flash to
CB, I couldn't get Flash to embed, the one above is from youtube, different format.
Anyway how to embed.
Enable your Rich Text editor.
Find the html button and click. This shows the "source code" and data going in the post.
Go to youtube and copy the embedded tags, come back and paste it into your editor.
Now toggle your html button again, it should appear immediately.
Questions to John Albanese.
John did you actually see the airplane hit the WTC?
What airline was it?
What colour was the airplane?
Was it a MIlitary airplane?
Did your hear the jet engines roaring at 500mph, or feel the turbulence?
thanks. I could never figure
thanks. I could never figure this out..
Go to a HTML tutorial, check
Go to a HTML tutorial, check the /embed/ tags for more!!
honestly, why does this post have 28 comments?
people tend to ignore posts with few comments and read those that are heavily commented on. Instead of posting endless replies to these no-plane posts, why don't people comment on the more substantive posts? priorities??
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
i can punch a hole in
i can punch a hole in aluminum, i would break my fist trying to punch through some alluminum alloys..
just like the many photos of birds that we see punched right thru a wing?
we saw a 767 enter the wtc2 without even slowing down on tv. we didn't see the fuselage beginning with the plastic nosecone squash like a beer can all the way to the engines which alone of a 767 might have a chance of breaking the wtc2 columns. we saw even the very tips of the wings enter the wtc2 without even slowing down - certainly none of it broke off. that alone proves tvfakery.
then after the plane was entirely inside the wtc2 -and only then - did we see an explosion the result of which was a ridiculous plane-shaped hole like yosemitesam would make. we didn't see the hole being made as the plastic nosecone cut thru the columns like an arrow, nor did we see it being made as the wings including the tips sliced thru the columns like a razor. we were all deceived by what in retrospect are merely foolish looking phony images - next time the mcmedia fools us it wont be so obvious.
and the thousands of eye-witnesses who saw the planes.....
are all spies
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
thousands of people in the streets. thousands of people watching from buildings. thousands of photographers. all spies.
Albanese,
Albanese,
please start giving us these 1000 of URLs of alleged witnesses.
Please also tell us why *you* didn't see the "white elephant plane", which was circulating the building and then passing the crime scene at time of second hit (as also witnessed by Diane Sawyer), captured by CNN and an amateur, archived by Camera Planet.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_4_Jet.pdf
Your alleged "1000s of witnesses" are also already debunked by those who saw the opposite: NOTHING.
GeorgeWash tried the same pseudo argument. It failed.
Here is why:
This is a list of people, who didn't see or hear anything,
though either in a position where they should have been incl. right in front of the building or also on "roofs" etc..., starting with some updates not published at this link yet:
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
15)
http://www.stefangeens.com/000158.html
"...about 20 minutes after the first explosion, a huge fireball erupted out of the South tower, about 2 thirds of the way up. People screamed on the roofs around me, where everybody was beginning to gather. Most memorable is the bright bright orange of that explosion, and also the crispness of it; it's a quality difficult to describe--it's the quality of NOT seeing it on television, at a much higher resolution and in the outdoors, under a clear sky. The boom came later.
It was difficult to know what had just happened. I already knew from the radio that the first explosion had been caused by a plane. Was the second caused by a news helicopter accident? The plane that caused this second explosion had in fact come from behind the tower, so from my vantage point I had not seen it.
16)
http://p066.ezboard.com/fnypdrant64609frm1.showMessage?topicID=43159.top...
"...As I was the only security guy on sight I wasn't able to leave right away. Due to the angle of the buildings I never saw the second plane hit, but could clearly see the results..."
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
1)
http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/03/10/nicos-timeline-cnns-reality-tv-h...
"...I have witnessed a horrible history. I was supposed to go to NJ for a
seminar. I was on the BQE bridge going into Chinatown, Manhattan, when I saw
an explosion at exactly 8:48am on the first Twin Tower. The radio said that
it was a plane accident. I immediately called my sister in NJ, who normally
has to get to the World Trade Center station (she works for the Mayor's
office, 4 blocks away from WTC). I told her that there has been an accident
and told her to avoid that station. She said that my brother will drive her
to Manhattan instead. I then placed another phone call telling
my best friend to stay away from the area. My friend has jury duty and the
Supreme
Court is 3 blocks away. Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see
the plane.
http://www.geocities.com/vnwomensforum/september11debate.html
(NOTE: BQE Bridge is local slang for Brooklyn Queens Express running over
the Williamsborough Bridhe)
2)
http://www.panix.com/userdirs/timothy/wtc.html
"...We all looked up at the WTC to see one tower on fire. There was a ring
of fire encircling the building one floor...near the top. The floors above
the ring were enshrouded in thick black upwardly rising waves. Every second
or two the fire crept lower--floor by floor---dripping like wax down a
candle.
The thought of those people...they're being incinerated..there's no way to
control that fire. Then a huge fireball--monstrous in size--shot out and
up---like some horribly visible dragon's breath.(this was the fireball from
the impact of the second jet--I didn't realize this until after viewing the
footage of the attack)..."
3)
http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg
"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..."
4)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/have_your_say/september_11.shtml
... Gemma McDonald, Houston, Texas: On the morning of September 11. I was
getting ready to go to school, when the news station broke in with breaking
news. They said a plane had hit the world trade center. They were in the
middle of broadcasting that story live, whenever a big fireball appeared out
of the other tower. In order to see what hit the tower. They had to replay
the tape in slow motion. We didn't know what had happened because we didn't
see the plane, because it was so fast. Whenever I did figure out what
happened I got this weird feeling across my body that I can't describe..."
5)
TV'"witness":
http://www.vegasgangonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7574&page=2
"...stood there watching the coverage in the airport until my flight was called.
I saw the explosion in the second tower and thought it was because of the
first tower burning as I didn't see the plane hit. My flight was called
about 9:20 and I boarded the plane, we all sat there until about 9:35 when
the pilot announced taht all flights were cancelled. After I got of the
plane I went back to the TV and saw what was going on.."
6)
Hispano amateur cameraman, who didn't see any object hitting south tower,
while filming both towers:
http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell/3.jpg
Compare with same geograpical position of towers aT Rosalee's site
(Antenna is in the back of second= north tower)
http://www.webfairy.org/2hit/blueplane.htm
http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell
"...When I was back in the roof I saw
just before my eyes the explosion on Tower 2.
I didn't see the plane, nor did any of the other
guys on the roof. We speculated for a few
minutes. The only thing we could imagine was
on of the wings of the first plane hitting the
other tower and provoking the explosion, but
that was very unlikely...."
7)
From an amateur camera clip, camera positioned on both towers:
"...we just saw another explosion (TV comment)...."
Person 1 in room: "...Another explosion Kate..."
Kate: "...i know, i know..." (noone of both refered to any plane)
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/day1-tower2-fireball-only.wmv
8)
Don Dahler vs. ABC
Dahler:
...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i...
Gibson:
We just saw another plane coming in from the side.
Dahler:
You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view...
Gibson:
That was a second explosion.
You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen...
(=> Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv
9)
Witness Reporter Winston on NBC, which had same synched W-ABC clip:
the "building is exploding right now"
The studio host doesn't even see his monitor where the same W-ABC footage
shows same black flying object vanishing behind first tower, then followed by explosion and fireball (no sound).
The studio host agrees with street reporter (who didn't report any incoming 'plane', that this explosion must have been forced from 'parts of the first plane..."
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/msnbc_2ndCGIplane_wrongtower_touch.mpg
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGIplane_touches_northtower.jpg
(RENDERING UPLOAD MISTAKE)
10)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/bombs/
Witness: NO second plane, it was a bomb....
FOX clip
Reporter Rick Leventhal is whisking witness away: "we heard about tv reports..."
11)
Pilot Witness:
http://www.montclair.edu/pages/alumnilife/alumnilifewinter02/features4.h...
"... I saw a flash and fireball from the top of the World Trade Center.
....Due to the angle and altitude of our flight, I have sometimes experienced the optical illusion of something appearing to hit a building.
We then flew south to the Battery to see if whatever had hit it had gone out the other side. We saw heavy damage on the south side of Tower 1, but saw nothing of substance on the ground or on Tower 2, so we decided to go back north again, all the while just on the water's edge on the Manhattan side at about 900 feet. Ninety seconds after leaving the Battery, in the spot where we had just been looking, the second plane hit the second tower. We never saw the plane, but I could see the flash of the impact from behind us.
12) More amateur tapes showing no planes at 2nd attack (06/02)
Dialogue between guy and his girlfriend:
Man: "...wtf**k. What was that?
Woman: "I don't know"
Man: "..they're f**in bombing it...
Must have been a rocket or something.."
13) Two dudes do not catch any plane
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2137200753344880184&q=9%2F11&pl=...
tower 1 on fire only filmed by amateur and his buddy, then unfortunately shortly edited and started filming again...
"...oh my god..." (amateur camera continues filming after 2nd attack on ST, but no comment on any plane....!!)
dialogue of two dudes continues:
guy 1:
"...that must have been a fukin terrorist attack. Probably that just explode.. that doesn't make any sense, that has...
interrupted by guy 2:
"...How did THAT ONE just catch on fire man?... see this stuff is falling out...
14)Bird "sees" no plane (check out blog below)
Amateur Footage with no plane in it while filming fireball:
all direct video links here:
http://911tvfakery.net/
17)
Latest no-plane amateur plane, though edited.
No incoming aircraft sound, no plane at time of impact
http://www.nyctv.com/Censor_911_Video.htm
1)
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Another amateur footage shows no plane hit South Tower (08/05)
2)
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Compare with yet another amateur video, same perspective, explosion, no plane
3)
The "no-plane" bird (07/13)
(now also vlogged at 911CGIwatch.blogspot)
4)
May Archives
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
More amateur tapes showing no planes at 2nd attack (06/02)
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_911tvfakery_archive.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P8oZIYkoBfE&search=september%2011%20plane
5)
May 1, 2006
Two dudes do not catch any plane
http://tinyurl.com/nhuu6
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2137200753344880184&q=9%2F11&pl=...
6)
March 5, 2006
Dahler doesn't see or hear any plane at the South Tower
http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv
7)
February 2, 2006
Amateur Video of 2nd hit without any clear plane
http://tinyurl.com/lrt45
http://www.bolt.com/audio/audio_player_flv_branded.swf?contentId=170167&...
8)
9/11 CGI: FOX vs CNN (06/28)
Amateur Vid of couple not seeing any plane
and here is one satire fake how can easily do the opposite:
WTC 7 "hit" by a "plane":
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/WTC7_plane002.swf
If Nico Shits In The Woods...
And no one had the vantage point to see it, does that mean it didn't happen?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Are you claiming that noone
Are you claiming that noone of the no-plane ear- and eye
witnesses had the alleged perfect vantage point?
Where is your evidence, that others had?
And where are the witnesses who saw "2 planes" at the same time?
Why are you still ignoring the "white elephant" fly-over?
No...
Several people did. In fact, if you watched the video of the collapsing towers that was posted on the anniversary, you'll hear someone speak of a "military plane". Regardless of whether or not it was a "military plane", they clearly saw a plane. John Albanese clearly saw a plane. I posted another witness from a movie that had nothing to do with 9/11 who said they saw the plane.
Tell me Nico. According to you, did planes strike the towers or not?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
I STILL think the retarded child analogy holds
Nico - anyone with even half a brain would be forced to consider the scientific feasibility of my "retarded child" analogy. IT is very scientific.
i believe almost all of the research you have produced can be explained using this simple scientific principal.
beauty may be in the eye of the beholder - but science should never be defined in the eye of a retarded child.
stupid is as stupid does.
a lie is a lie is a lie.
Nuremberg demonstrated that reality cannot simply be spun to meet the needs of fascism. every once in awhile the average joe rises up and holds the fascists - and all their useful idiots - accountable.
It was a CGI shit dude,
It was a CGI shit dude, FACT!
So you are claiming that
So you are claiming that both Camera Planet and CNN added a CGI for a "third" plane? Prove it.
Explain also, how they did the "zoom-out-aircraft becomes smaller"- trick at both "Camera Planet" and CNN:
![[Image]](http://911review.org/img/september_11_9.jpg)
![[Image]](http://911review.org/images/terrorize.dk/cam01-small.JPG)
The following 2 footage clips are filmed from the same vintage point:
The second footage has no plane in it. Please explain why.
1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkPEyOQSX74
2)
http://tinyurl.com/ntej2
what garbage
utter garbage
There are anomalies in the
There are anomalies in the video evidence such as the white plane and the ejected debris/nose-cone/missile that have not been adequately explained. Nico and CB aren't the only 'TV Fakery' act in town, but they seem to be doing their best to drive everyone nuts by posting the same unconvincing frames again and again and even faking videos themselves. Why, in God's name?
The videos weren't faked
The videos weren't faked. No need to do so. But it is telling that you assume they must have been.
The collection has been archived forever. Check out Killtown's
WTC 'Plane' Crash Videos
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
I am talking about the link
I am talking about the link that CB gave us to a page called 'Nico's bizarro pplanes' that purports to show the Park Foreman video. It has been altered to make it look as though the plane comes and goes, when the original shows no such thing.
Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDNcjxFoAkk
I am sorry, but both guys have lost my support with that kind of stunt. Maybe I was a fool to give it any time at all.
OK
Maybe that showed a lack of judgment? Or a poor, mathematician-like sense of humor?
But did it really change the case? It's not as though anyone was was trying to trick people with it.
How do you feel about John Albanese saying he saw both "planes" hit, but refusing to give the location by which he and his co-workers scoped that out?
Did that kind of "stunt" make him lose your support too?
Check out a map of Manhattan. If he's up near Rockefeller Center "30 or 40" of his co-workers and himself are not going to see the 2nd "airplane" hit, even if it did happen. Maybe the suggestion of it, but not the direct hit.
If i'm wrong I wish he would correct me. I don't think such a thing is possible, even if you were on top of the Empire State Bld., which is at 32nd St. (because I've seen video from that vantage point) But I would like to be proved wrong, if I am.
I would love to hear his description of it, if such a thing indeed occurred. I've expected that there were people in tall office buildings - but was thinking more on the East Side of lower Downtown, who would've been in a postion to absolutely see it, if it did indeed occur as presented on T.V.
What floor he was on? If he's sure he saw, not the exact impact, because that would be impossible from there, but the suggestion of an impact and not a fly by, what is his recollection?
The reason I'm doing this is that I've met many people and discussed 9/11. Many have used the "But i was there. I saw it happen" as a trump card (when they want to discredit me - on any of a number of issues , but don't know how. ) It often comes out as a complete non sequiteur to the rest of the argument.
But when questioned closely, it turns out they could not have seen what they claim. Then it's usually, " After I saw the people falling out of the building.....I was so shook up." Which is understandable.
John Albanese, yesterday (under Fair Use Provision of copyright law )
Let me get this straight.......
(giggle)
You can't find any witnesses who saw the planes????
(giggle)
Where are you looking? Boise, Idaho?
Just in my office alone i know 3 people who saw the planes.
IN my last office everyone who was in that early watched Flight 11 pass our building (at a very low altitude). It appeared to almost hit 1 Rockefeller Center (which was probably just our perspective) - and we all watched it hit the north tower.
15 minutes later was all spotted the second plane - albeit from a distance - and watched it hit as well. Probably 30 to 40 people.
Over the last 5 years i've probably met hundreds of people who have seen one or the other plane. my cousin was evacuated from the world financial center and saw the 2nd plane hit.
Funny stuff Peggy. YOu can't find any witnesses.... bwahahahahahaha.......(wipes away tear)
By the way, I am someone here in NYC who talks to people constantly about the issue as I pass out fliers everywhere. I've been doing it for over a year. When I say I haven't run across any direct witnesses, I'm not talking from Boise, Idaho.
Also, seeing airplanes is not the same thing as seeing impacts.
Also, was the T.V. on in the office?
another interesting one...
DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.
I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.
and the thousands of
and the thousands of eye-witnesses who saw the planes.....
are all spies
thousands of people in the streets. thousands of people watching from buildings. thousands of photographers. all spies.
it doesn't matter what your thousands of eyewitlesses actually saw - what we saw on tv was fakery.
even if there was a real plane that you saw it was covered over by the mcmedia's presentation.
by the way albanese, which one did you see? the gray one with no flaps that ghosted thru the side? or the shadowy black one with an amputeed wing? or the invisible blob11?
Retarded child analogy
John Albanese is like a retarded child who goes to Disneyland and sees Mickey Mouse, maybe even gets a picture with him. Then, the small retarded child goes home and turns on Disney/ABC and sees Mickey Mouse in a cartoon. The small retarded child excitedly points at the TV and says, "I saw that mouse at Disneyland! that's my friend Mickey!" The retarded child is so confused about the nature of reality and television that he confuses the cartoon with something he saw in real life.
Hope this helps.
If John Albanese is such a
If John Albanese is such a 'valuable' witness, he can possibly also tell us from which direction his "plane" really came from.
I would be happy to hear an explanation for all of us of the discrepancies of the following 4screen shots of the second hit, where the aircraft silhouette is always coming from a straight right linear angle, no matter how the camera POV for the Towers is.
![[Image]](http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/26b.JPG)
![[Image]](http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/1i.JPG)
![[Image]](http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/14.JPG)
![[Image]](http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/28.JPG)
Sources:
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
(Server currently attacked)
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/2nd-hit.html (Mirror)
(PS: Oops. We note for the record that Jon Albanese didn't answer us on any other questions yet either.
Maybe *HIS* handlers are too busy to write him some smart answers ;-)
Albanese, here's a map:
Albanese, here's a map:
We don't wanna know the name of your office.
Please just circle for us exactly from where you saw the second hit.
(If you don't like this map, please use another one
http://www.martinlamm.de/usa/anlagen_usa/map_manhattan.jpg )
![[Image]](http://www.martinlamm.de/usa/anlagen_usa/map_manhattan.jpg)
Eyewitness proof: NO CARTOONS!
Hypothetical retarded child reports that he personally eyewitnessed a real-life Mickey Mouse, thus disproving the theory that Mickey Mouse is only a cartoon.
![[Image]](http://www.edrants.com/reluctant/keith_mickey.jpg)
Nico, I've been wracking my
Nico, I've been wracking my brain trying to figure these pictures out and hope you can ellaborate a bit.
I can't see anything in the first picture. The third picture does not seem abnormal to me. But when comparing the second and fourth pix, something does not look right.
Do you have anything real to compare these to? I've watched sci-fi movies for many many years, just like the average American.
Haupt vs Albanese-Gold
rayantoky
bklyn
Those two clowns who denigrate Nico are morons, plain and simple. They have no power of thought or independence. They have no interest in learning, seeing or thinking. Fuck the 9/11 Truth movement anyway since the perps at the MSM have used that term incessantly to confuse the public and serve their ends only. Fuck Ruppert, fuck Jones, and fuck anybody who believes in butter planes.Where are the fucking parts from these planes you assholes? Where are the real blackboxes?Both planes disappear completely?
The bottom line is the perps have such contempt for the public that they know they will fit the story and pictures to their version when they are ready. That's why they didnt care that the pentagon lawn wasn't messed up. They could change it later. Same with the JFK Jr. assassination. Initial reports said good weather and copilot. Changed.
[dz: removed threat and overly profane language]
[dz: please watch the profanity and threats, we have to keep these debates social for them to continue]
I will try again
Questions to John Albanese.
John did you actually see the airplane hit the WTC1? and WTC2?
What airline was it?
What colour was the airplane?
Did your hear the jet engines roaring at 500mph, or feel the ground shake?
The airplane was allegedly travelling at 500mph, nearly the speed of a rifle bullet, how long did you see it for?
Watch closely.
Wow, that's a bad one
I call that the "mosquito" airplane.
In that clip one can really sense the illusion "it " comes from the direct West.
There is no change in shape as it [supposedly] moves toward us from out of the background. That's the anomaly that makes us feel, subconsciously, that it travels directly at a right angle to our line of vision.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Willie Rodriguez
"Even though I was working with Jimmy, uh, before, I left because of differences... He's taking up, uh, the belief that there was no planes hitting the building. The blue screen technology. I think, uh, Nico is around here. I do not agree with that. I have many family members that are very offended by it. And many eye-witnesses that I have interviewed directly, that do not agree with that, and uh, ya know, it's just... goes against what I've been doing, and it's very divisive, and it's very hurtful to the movement, so I'm trying to unite everybody."
That's good enough for me. If Willie says he knows family members that are offended by this, then I think you know where the movement stands on this issue.
Move on.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
thanks jon....
http://911blogger.com/node/2971#comment-71242
http://911blogger.com/node/3041#comment-71240
http://911blogger.com/node/2995#comment-71238
http://911blogger.com/node/2340#comment-71243
http://911blogger.com/node/3018#comment-71241
but there's a few more NPT threads out there... so get posting!
John Albanese - an albatross around the neck of the movement
Funny how Albanese gets promoted repeatedly by the controlled mainstream media.
I mean... how does Albanese manage to get so many appearances on FOX for example.
Last time I saw him on FOX, Albanese made an incompetent ass out of himself.
He communicated very little useful information and made "9/11 conspiracy theorists" look bumbling, inarticulate and incompetent.
It was almost as painful as watching Steve Jones fumbling performance on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson show.
There's a reason why clowns like Albanese get promoted in mainstream media.
It's the same reason that Kyle Hence seems to have no trouble getting mainstream media coverage.
Because they are both deployed as gatekeepers, to either spread disinfo or keep the movement looking weak and incompetent.
Your appearances on mainstream media have done real damage to the truth movement, Albanese.
I hope you are being well-compensated for your sabotage.
I didn't realize that the
I didn't realize that the 911blogger Albanese was a media figure! I just know the handle as someone who trolls Haupt, whose leading 9/11 research I've been following since 2002, if not earlier...
Albanese's alleged "witness
Albanese's alleged "witness account" this morning was a joke.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3041#comment-71167
First he didn't answer on my question on the 1000 of URLs of alleged witnesses.
Then he suddenly turned in one of them.
Then it took almost 20 hours to give us an account, from which position he saw both planes.
Then he also still didn't tell us why *he* didn't see the "white elephant plane", which was circulating the building and then passing the crime scene at time of second hit (as also witnessed by Diane Sawyer), captured by CNN and an amateur, archived by Camera Planet.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_4_Jet.pdf
There was nothing specific in Albanese's descriptions either and apparently he was many miles away to see the attack of the South Tower, which was officially hit from the South.
Also, the office building from Victoria Secrets (i checked this out today) has blocking buildings on the west side, but i'm sure Albanese will find a spin for this either...
However Albanese wants to represent a pro-plane witness, so let's give him the honor.
It doesn't hurt the argument anyway.
Point is, too many witnesses oppose his statement and that's why all witness reports have nothing to do with the evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery anyway.
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
If John thinks he must be more right because he's a "media and book star", well George Bush and the 9/11 panel are this too :)
I don't take any statements of Albanese for serious, who not only blocked the evidence on controlled demolition for many years, also forced us at ny911truth to minimize our banner message during 2003/04, but also recently supported Mike Ruppert's statement, that "Loose Change is CIA material".
On Thursday Albanese can tell his recently created *new* 9/11 questions meetup members in NYC, why he thinks, hangout material is so sufficient for this movement.
I heard at least one member will show up.
That's Nic Levis (ex-911truth.org )and the other saboteur against controlled demolition. How convenient :)
Maybe you can pull more strings on dutch TV, with your "doku", a country which oddly presents now also the better PopMech pseudo scientists since months (Delft/Zembla)
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/173603
Coincidence that right after the "success" of this TV show, Jones suddenly disappeared from the 'conspiracy theorist scene'??
Didn't i point out weeks ago, that the perps will move the investigation of CD into Europe?
Well here we go, Albanese and the ScrewLoosers are already there, ;)
And then we have also the "second John Albanese", which is obviously clearly *NOT him*, but just to rule this out, i pull it up:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/firefighter/1.html
John Albanese
"It Didn't Seem Real"
I live in Eastchester, just north of city, and I've been a volunteer firefighter for the Eastchester fire department for 32 years, since I was 18. My family has been involved with fire department for two generations..
...Tuesday morning my daughter and I were at home. My brother called me — he used to work for the Port Authority in security in one of the Towers; he just left that job last year. He called me after the first plane hit and told me what had happened. We turned on the television and I was panicking and yelling, running around the house..."
Man witnesses 2nd plane hit
Man witnesses 2nd plane hit from helicopter: "In the distance I saw an airplane... I recall looking again and it was getting much larger... I said this plane is coming right at our window. It was the closest I'd ever seen a plane, by accident, coming to my helicopter... I remember seeing the aircraft going under our aircraft... He could have only been maybe 200 feet underneath us. And I just remember following him and just watching him and just turning my head and watching him, and watching him pull up and then just disappearing right into the South Tower... I thought it was an airbus, turns out to be a 767"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JjmVFAKe1nI
NYPD Officer Shares His Story: "You do not expect to see half of a smoking airplane engine on the ground, in front of the Burger King you eat at least once a week. I'm sorry, but nothing prepares you for that. Even worse, I did not expect to see the remains of what I believed was a little old woman, under half of an airplane engine, either. As I stared at the smear that was alive thirty seconds prior, I lifted the phone to my ear and remember wincing at the heat emanating off of the wreckage in front of me."
http://911blogger.com/node/3094
Witnesses who saw the second plane: "Holy shit... Another fucking plane flew in."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2859455565562890133&q=911+camer...
Woman who saw second plane:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1688790873499738139&q=911+camera...
Maintenance men on roof witness plane:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1104754125074399247&q=911+camera...
More witnesses to the second plane: "They headed straight for it. But that wasn't a plane? It was a rocket or somethin'. Was it? It was fucking fast."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LLKANxa2CTs
Person reacting as 2nd plane hits South Tower:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-y0wxz0YGF4
2nd plane crashing in the south tower
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gUQP-wClN3E
Witness to the first plane: "A group of us saw a plane veer through the building... It was a larger plane, a mid-size plane and we could hear it very low..."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d4CJQfBrqEc
one problem with that
one problem with that though...
- It is possible for witnesses to be mistaken or to lie
- It is not possible for scientific laws to change
- It's also possible for videos of "witnesses" reacting to a plane to be faked
There are REAL scientists (such as Dr Judy Wood) working on the tv-fakery theory. Where's the REAL scientists work to prove the videos are not fake? There are none. Not even Dr Jones will address aluminum gliding through steel and concrete. Yet he DOES support the research as he signed the petition.
Understanding TV fakery: grainy images
cgi | network complicity | video evidencePerhaps you have seen the images such as this one- http://www.911blogger.com/node/3778
-showing the back half of an airplane sticking out of a building while the area between the fuselage and the left wing appears undamaged.. These are not photographs of course, but single frames from videos broadcast on 911 by major networks and included in DVDs sold by the networks after 911. Many concerned researches have been unwilling to accept the authenticity of these images, believing the network videos contain CGI insert to simulate a plane crashing into a building which then explodes. Others have complained that the images are “grainy” or “fuzzy”, without addressing the content of the images.
While it is true that these videos, even the DVD versions, would not help you show off your new hi-def television, these descriptions suggest a desire to disregard the content of the image based upon its quality. Yet, any researcher who sees apparent anomalies in a grainy image need only locate the DVD image to find out if these anomalies are also present in the higher resolution version of the same image.
All of the relevant anomalies shown in the lower resolution images of the plane entering the building are present in the DVD version of the same images. Any disagreement should therefore be based on the content of the images and whether or not the events depicted comply with the laws of physics. An examination of the images presented online and taken from the CNN documentary DVD “America Remembers”, shows the tail of a plane which has entered a building with the building remaining undamaged between the fuselage and the left engine. The event depicted in the image is not physically possible. This image and many others depicting physically impossible events were broadcast by CNN and other major networks on 911. Why? To create the belief that a hijacked passenger jet crashed in to WTC2 when, in fact, it did not. I invite you to investigate this important issue for yourself. The images may be grainy, but the evidence is clear.
You worded this piece so
You worded this piece so cleverly to avoid getting banned, eh?
> Any disagreement should therefore be based on the content of the images
> and whether or not the events depicted comply with the laws of physics
haha, non sequitur!
The argument that VIDEO compression artefacts are responsible for the
smooth facade (not showing impact damage) is still usable.
And I believe this is precisely the planehuggers are using.
But, psst, if we continue to talk about it here we get you banned, too...
and I can never get unbanned, if this was an option, ever.
So, lets talk quietly... no boldface, understand!
> The images may be grainy, but the evidence is clear.
I agree, actually. Because the nature of video-compression is
to spend extraordinary amount of data on faithfully reproducing something
that the eye could see... and only reduce detail where there is nothing to see,
or replace with prefab patterns. In my blog there is killtown's (?) yellow-arrow
photo/video-still .. and IMHO impact damage should be visible, video compression
or not. From experience, the DVD (mpeg) video compression is good enough.
But of course the video-compression or other manipulation that was applied
before CNN printed the DVDs is the crunch. It is certain that some manipulation
took place, if only to convert to DVD. So, if the same people that did the original
convertion/manipulation released this obviously physically impossible footage they
either passed on a pre-manipulated imagery or ruined the image-quality beyond
belief.
You worded this piece so
You worded this piece so cleverly to avoid getting banned, eh?
But, psst, if we continue to talk about it here we get you banned, too...
and I can never get unbanned, if this was an option, ever.
please stop with your suggestions that you were banned because of discussing any given topic, there are tons of blog entries on this subject.
you were banned for your actions, and that is explained here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3929
likewise, if you want to be unbanned email me (as is explained in the rules), otherwise don't expect to be.
Please clarify one rule, please
Thank you for this blog, dz.
You have one rule that is hard for me to apply to myself in trying to avoid violations:
"Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread"
I sometimes find myself responding by bringing up things the person said on another thread. Is this not allowed? I assume you don't want personal attacks being carried across threads (or being made at all), but sometimes I respond to personal attacks by bringing up things a person said elsewhere. And substantive arguments also sometimes require reference to another thread.
Could you please clarify what you mean? The rule is a bit vague, at least for me. Thank you.
assessing the argument's validity
"The argument that VIDEO compression artifacts are responsible for the smooth facade (not showing impact damage) is still usable."
Any argument is "usable". The question the researcher must ask is: Is the argument valid?
The evidence is visible, even in relatively low-res images. The evidence is confirmed in the high-res (DVD)versions of the same images. I am unaware of any logical explanation, except CGI inserts, which accounts for the physically impossible events depicted in the images. Video compression does not account for the lack of visible damage on the building where a fuel-filled airplane wing, travelling at around 500mph, is alleged to have just impacted the building. Video compression cannot, in any way, account for the complete lack of deceleration as the 'plane' impacts and 'vanishes' into the building.
I think we are allowed
to talk about the subject here.. as long as we keep in quiet.
You will not be able to convince ... unless you can make it clear that video-compression does not smother the real-world impact damage.
Although surface of the building looks smooth (despite windows) -- a gash *would* show up.
Compression smoothes regular features, but enhances irregular shapes.
In other words.. tell people how video compression works and make a quantitative study and show it is impossible that video compression is happening here... and then
TAADAAA
people will HAVE TO believe you.
But they won\'t.
Its like saying:
USA is the greatest purveyor of violence...
and in the next sentence everyone says:
But muslims are the terrorists and we give generous foreign aid.
The fact that world-wide millions have and hundred-thousands still die because of USA actions cannot be accepted... however true.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
Ho hum ... it is like 911 always was.
First you wonder, then you find the evidence and you are exited. You get the word out and everyone thinks you are a nutter. Then you find more and more evidence and as DRG says, the cumulative evidence counts, too. Eventually everyone recognises it.
The Noplane debate however is now poisoned.
Which is a shame, because IMHO it is the hottest thing, ever.
Think! Telling the world that they manipulate the \\\\\\\'reality\\\\\\\' by video.. my goddess, this is blasphemy of the first order. This This This ah ah would would mean that much of what we are shown on TV is faked?
Yes my son.
If I mention the fact that NoPlane is sooo much easier to execute... people will accuse me of simplefying it because *I wish* it to be true... just so that I can call myself the queen of debunkers. Yeah, whatever..
Yes,
The Noplane debate however is now poisoned.
Basically the 911 truthlings want to protect their children from the noplane porn.
If however expert/luminary 911truthers would embrace the fact that videomanipulation was done... It would force the issue... they just do not want to go there..
BTW -- same people accuse Chomsky of a very similar crime.
"Because the nature of
"Because the nature of video-compression is
to spend extraordinary amount of data on faithfully reproducing something
that the eye could see... and only reduce detail where there is nothing to see,"
Hm, you havent exactly increased the credibilty of your overall post with that statement. I would suggest to overwork that one again. Cause, frankly,it is wrong.
What you state is the goal of video compression , that is correct. But if you study the effects it has, you can clearly see this statement does not hold up.
Its not quite that simple as you put it. Compression of images works far from ideal, at this point in time.
Now, im not saying your whole np theory is either right or wrong, or that video compression can be used to explain all anomalies. But even if everythin else you say is right, i'd suggest to correct that one. Cause you loose readers, you know.
Quarantine.
I suggest we quarantine this. Shhhhh.
All of the relevant
All of the relevant anomalies shown in the lower resolution images of the plane entering the building are present in the DVD version of the same images
of course they are. that is why some of us are so outspoken about the obviousness of 9/11 tv fakery. maybe an actual plane hit the wtc2 and maybe not but even if so it couldn't have been what we saw on tv.
so before anyone throws up the old "thousands of eyewitnesses" line i will post just a few testimonies:
""I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane,....""
""sure enough there it was, another plane. The plane wasn't no er... airliner or anything, it was a twin engine, big grey plane...""
""it definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides and definitely was very low... it was not a normal flight that I've ever seen at an airport...""
""...we saw the, this blue and red plane coming by and er... smash into the, er... south tower.."".
""as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the centre, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not""
""watched him turn and crash right into the south tower. I said thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was military plane like transport or small cargo military.""
""...so many people saw it. They actually described the plane as it came in. They said it was a military-type plane and it was green and it was this. I mean, I never saw the color of the plane.""
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/#Witness
do any of these officially recorded testimonies coincide with what was presented to us by the mcmedia?
not.
witnesses and doublethnk
James, thanks for the ' witness' accounts. As I discussed in my earlier post http://911blogger.com/node/3864, many seem quite willing to dismiss witness accounts which claim flight 77 hit the pentagon, yet cling to similar accounts regarding WTC 1&2 in a illogical (though psychologically understandable) attempt to deny what their eyes can plainly see. They fight the internal, private battle between the physical, instinctive desire to seek safety and comfort in the herd and the mind's desire for logic and reason. Let us hope that continued appeals for individuals to investigate this issue by themselves and for themselves will lead to a more widespread understanding of tv fakery and its use in creating the myths of 911.
people do not read.
An excellent article.
Thanks u2. Your continued efforts despite your (temporary?) exile, are appreciated.
http://www.positiontoknow.com
http://911logic.blogspot.com/
http://911logic.blogspot.com/
9/11 WNYW FOX5 Blooper - "Jim Friedl": Eyewitness or Member of the TV Fakery WESCAM Crew?
would someone be kind enough
would someone be kind enough to post hi-res captures from the DVD?
DVD image capture
CB - I have the CNN DVD (and others) but lack the know-how and/or software to capture the images. If you could share instructions on how-to or suggest software, I would be glad to capture and post the images. As you probably know (and I mentioned in this post), even the DVD images are less than 'hi-def'.
Thanks.
here's free software to rip
here's free software to rip a DVD to hard drive, but don't know about capturing (although I could try to find out).
Thanks, CB
I'll rip it and see what I can do.
also, check out:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html
the "script"- even more absurd without the visual distractions of the video. Jeanne Yurman- the original no-planer?
Capturing?
To capture a frame just hit the button to take a screen shot, off the computer, and then save? That's what I would do. Then edit it to .jpg, as needed, with photoshop?
Dear John Gault,
Is John Gault your real name?
If so, can you prove it?
Have you ever worked in any capacity for the US government?
I fully admit that my name is not actually John Doraemi, and I have no intention of telling you what it is. On the other hand, I'm not spreading grossly ridiculous disinformation that benefits the perps. I prefer to stick to the facts that they don't particularly want talked about.
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Earth's magnetic field:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home