Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:07 am Post subject:
Just a few observations. No conclusions
Unlikely the Helicopter is reversing no need for it to do so.
The film is not being played backwards as can be seen by the smoke ascending from the towers.
The illusion of the helicopter to be "reversing" could be achieved by it actually hovering or moving slower than the camera that is filming it.
A couple of shots purporting to be the same showing the"reversing helicopter" in the same location actually appear to show the helicopter at different distances from the dark building _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
you may say that the camera zoom out may create the appearance of the helicopter reversing, yet it is still reversing when the camera stops zooming out and zooms in
The reversing helicopter is travelling slower than the one we are in - just like you overtaking a slower car in the nearside lane on the motorway. There is no law to say all helicopters must fly at the same speed. Because of the distance away that the background is, there is no frame of reference to judge relative speeds, hence the reversing 'illusion'.
There would be any number of helicopters in the air on that day in that general location, many the same model with the same markings. The helicopter we are in is still on the extreme periphery of the action 'overtaking' slower ones that are slightly closer - it does it twice. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
The reversing helicopter is travelling slower than the one we are in - just like you overtaking a slower car in the nearside lane on the motorway. There is no law to say all helicopters must fly at the same speed. Because of the distance away that the background is, there is no frame of reference to judge relative speeds, hence the reversing 'illusion'.
There would be any number of helicopters in the air on that day in that general location, many the same model with the same markings. The helicopter we are in is still on the extreme periphery of the action 'overtaking' slower ones that are slightly closer - it does it twice.
Oh really TC - there you go pouring cold water all over the head of TV Fakery.
Don't you realise that without juvenile interpretations of perspective there wouldn't be any TV Fakery cult? At all???
Out of interest jfk (which surely stands for 'just f*cking kidding'), has the video conman passing himself off as "Simon Shack" only got one eye?
It would explain a lot.
But what's your excuse? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
1# All the many hundreds of people didn't really see a plane hit wtc2 they were all mind controlled into believing they did just because it was on tv.
2# The 'video fakers' didn't bother to fake totally synchronized and believable fake videos of the day but instead went out of their way to fake totally unsynchronized and unbelievable ones to broadcast on the day so they'd be caught out by a guy and his movie maker program.
3# The truth movement, which was once so united in challenging the mainstream into re-examining 9/11, is now so divided by theories like NPT, not because it's disinfo designed to do so, which it is doing, but because it really is the truth and the movement beforehand was full of shills and disinfo agents not asking for a real re-investigation into what really happened; and, by asking for a re-investigation what they were actually doing was covering up the fact that there were no planes.
Fancy being the attorney trying to get that to stand up in a court of law...?
these are the half-truthers. Unable to compute the much more awful truth - we(who think we are smart) were comprehensively fooled by pure smoke and mirrors.
i would say it is divided by people who refuse to accept tv fakery evidence
why not answer the many concerns people have with tv fakery and npt if you want them to understand it? instead of complaining and trying to enforce your views on people.
Quote:
exactly jfk.
these are the half-truthers. Unable to compute the much more awful truth - we(who think we are smart) were comprehensively fooled by pure smoke and mirrors.
come on al, that is'nt exactly a speech of unity is it?
people disagree about the evidence of npt/tv fakery etc. that dos'nt mean they oppose you believing it. and dos'nt mean there has to be division.
it seems like those trying to force people to believe it are just as much to blame. evidence that stands up is the only thing that will ever make people believe npt etc or anything claimed on this site.
Jfk,
You don't get it - there is no evidence - there is not even a decent claim on which to strengthen with evidence!
Tell us now - WHAT was faked?
Because the starting point of fakery (the planes were super-imposed onto imagery of a bomb going off or over a missile hitting the towers) has warped so badly it now changes with every new flickery video.
You don't get that the so called "evidence" people thought they saw with the planes has been proven to be nothing more than glitches from video compresseion by the fact that it appears all over any youtube video ripped from vhs - not just on the planes!
But rather than adapt and say "OK it's pretty clear those flickers on the planes don't mean anything as they appear all over the place" you've gone further into insanity and claimed everything was fake.
Buildings are supposedly missing, bridges are moving around, birds move too fast to be birds, helicopters fly backwards.
The pathetic thing about this is all in the last sentence are explainable to camerawork and perspective and are not even down to compression.
You've become parodies of yourselves - none more telling than when you see something in a video which DOES fit your theory (like a speck which could be an "orb" or a helicopter which you'd like to say is a missile) and suddenly that video is essentially real - WHILE EVERY PART OF EVERY OTHER VIDEO IS FAKE!
You've gone beyond the joke. I'm sorry if my words seem harsh I'm sure some of you are good meaning honest people - you just need to wake up and realise you've been suckered by disinfo. _________________
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: now now folks
All that is required is to produce one shred of solid empirical irrefutable evidence of passenger planes hitting the towers, for example authentic verifiable debris. No one is required to prove the negative ie no planes - only point out that there is no evidence. So I wait, fully confident that on this afternoon, nor at any time in the future will any 'plane hugger' be able to do this. Done deal I'm sorry to say. You have been hoodwinked.
Now take this challenge. Reveal the evidence which you must have in order to prove that the OCT is correct. ie hi-jacked planes were used to hit the towers.
marky - watch now for the disunity brigade begin to splutter and bluster, but without offering any evidence.
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: Re: now now folks
alwun wrote:
All that is required is to produce one shred of solid empirical irrefutable evidence of passenger planes hitting the towers, for example authentic verifiable debris. No one is required to prove the negative ie no planes - only point out that there is no evidence. So I wait, fully confident that on this afternoon, nor at any time in the future will any 'plane hugger' be able to do this. Done deal I'm sorry to say. You have been hoodwinked.
Now take this challenge. Reveal the evidence which you must have in order to prove that the OCT is correct. ie hi-jacked planes were used to hit the towers.
marky - watch now for the disunity brigade begin to splutter and bluster, but without offering any evidence.
cheers Al.
Al,
That's not the way it works. We start with the official story and show what is false.
We have plenty of evidence of planes hitting the towers -
Such as videos, photographs, witness testimoney, the impossibility of the damage done to the towers being created by anything else.
Is there any claim made against this evidence which has stood up? No.
So there we remain - where we started - with planes hitting the towers. Until demonstrated otherwise. _________________
marky - watch now for the disunity brigade begin to splutter and bluster, but without offering any evidence.
the way it comes across to me, is that anybody who dares point out certain information could be wrong or IS wrong, is'nt taken to kindly by those who have convinced themselves it is correct.
its dos'nt matter how many people complain, act over paranoid, or accuse others of using tactics. it has always been a case of and will always be a case of the evidence standing up.
there are some in the NPT crowd that label those thinking for themselves as 'gatekeeping'
i have offered information which contridicts what certain figures claim as fact lots of times. the response you get is one of sarcasm and resentment for daring to question or look for myself at the information that was originally provided.
there seems to be some who think it works as simply as this:
step1 they show what 'they' believe to be proof.
step2 everbody should turn up and believe it without checking the information and if they see any problems then they should keep their mouths shut.
step3 anybody doing the opposite to step 2 are gatekeepers and are against npt because npt is true and everybody disagreeing are 'shill type' posters.
its tireing, i don't care anymore, if people want to promote evidence that is potentially wrong IMO, then go ahead. its none of my buisness, but i will not expect the truth movement to be taken seriously when there is certain information i find hard to take serious myself due to lack of evidence or dodgy evidence.
i will never believe NPT, not because i did'nt look to try and find the evidence but because some of the believers think anything will do to prove their case even if its plainly wrong to anybody else.
i don't believe NPT but i don't see how that means we have to keep labelling eachother, or why people are not entitled to an opinion on the evidence.
i am never swayed by what a NPT'ER says or somebody who thinks NPT is rubbish thinks. i am swayed by the strength of their evidence.
and thats all it always boils down to. wether i am to believe in ghosts/NPT/ the yeti/ or anything else people want me to look at, how believable it is always boils down to evidence.
Last edited by marky 54 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
you dismiss witness who saw a plane, you dismiss footage of a plane, and dismiss the debris of a plane. you dismiss the radar information "we have a plane heading towards new york, we just wondered if you could help us out and scramble some jets up there"
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: Re: now now folks
alwun wrote:
All that is required is to produce one shred of solid empirical irrefutable evidence of passenger planes hitting the towers, for example authentic verifiable debris.
You, me and the dog next door have seen the photos of plane debris Al.
You know it and I know it. The most compelling reason for lack of positive ID on the wreckage and the ongoing stonewalling of making that information available is that it didn't originate from the claimed aircraft, not that the aircraft weren't there.
alwun wrote:
No one is required to prove the negative ie no planes - only point out that there is no evidence.
You jest, of course. What's that maxim about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence? Because none of the claims on which your fabulous theory are based on have withstood scrutiny so far.
alwun wrote:
So I wait, fully confident that on this afternoon, nor at any time in the future will any 'plane hugger' be able to do this. Done deal I'm sorry to say. Now take this challenge. Reveal the evidence which you must have in order to prove that the OCT is correct. ie hi-jacked planes were used to hit the towers.
And so Al, no doubt feeling very pleased with himself, gets to fall back on the old bait and switch trick. "If you you don't buy into the NPT fantasy well, you must therefore support the OCT".
Weak, pathetic and dishonest - even by your NPT standards, Al.
alwun wrote:
marky - watch now for the disunity brigade begin to splutter and bluster, but without offering any evidence.
Disunity brigade? I think the evidence for your methods is all too plain to see. "If you're not with us you're against us", in the classic fascist phrase.
alwun wrote:
You have been hoodwinked.
A large proportion of the population was hoodwinked by the 911 Myth.
But luckily only a handful seem to have been further hoodwinked and neutralised by NPT.
Remember Al, be sure to buy as many of "Simon's" forthcoming DVD's as possible. He's been working this fraud promotion for about a year now, and even the totality of the sad sacks populating 911 Movement aren't that much of a pay-off financially. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: just a link
just a link to the irrefutable solid evidence, marky.
witnesses can and do lie
plane debris has never been authenticated - do you really believe that if it were possible to authenticate that it would not have been.
the footage beggars belief, unless you believe in the magic aluminium fairy wand which can slice through through concrete and steel without a single sign of a stutter or pause, and leave a precise cut-out hole. bwahaha!
what radar evidence. For the first time ever since procedures were put in place - no military aircraft were despatched on time, in spite of some sixty similar prior incidents in that same year.
anyway folks, as we say
believe it if you like. It's not my job to convince you against your will.
3# The truth movement, which was once so united in challenging the mainstream into re-examining 9/11, is now so divided by theories like NPT,
i would say it is divided by people who refuse to accept tv fakery evidence
Funny how you pick on the only factual point of my post. But..what's the answer? Why are the - as you would say - fake videos so badly made as your opinion would suggest.
Why wouldn't they, in their years of planning, have experts making 'flawless fakes'?
what radar evidence. For the first time ever since procedures were put in place - no military aircraft were despatched on time, in spite of some sixty similar prior incidents in that same year.
"Claims by authorities that, once a hijacked aircraft’s transponders have been turned off, the plane becomes virtually invisible to radar, is another sore point for Hordon.
“Bottom line, these aircraft were always radar monitored, we were always in communication with them, even if they were hijacked. The only way you can lose an aircraft these days is for the plane to flat out blow up.”
"
no doubt you will dimiss it somehow.
Quote:
witnesses can and do lie
apart from those saying they did'nt see a plane? if witnesses of a plane are void so are those who say they did'nt see one.
Quote:
plane debris has never been authenticated - do you really believe that if it were possible to authenticate that it would not have been.
and what does that prove? that none were found?
Quote:
the footage beggars belief, unless you believe in the magic aluminium fairy wand which can slice through through concrete and steel without a single sign of a stutter or pause, and leave a precise cut-out hole. bwahaha!
yet your willing to believe NO PLANE can slice through steel with ease and leave a plane shaped hole?
EDIT:
Quote:
just a link to the irrefutable solid evidence, marky.
what is irrefutable evidence? anybody can refute any evidence of anything.
theres no such thing as evidence that cannot be denied. so a description of evidence you would accept is needed. and the evidence you would accept as evidence will not be the same for everyone.
some would even deny that evidence.
Last edited by marky 54 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
They stand alone as evidence of tv fakery. And that's it. It is not our job to explain why - simply to point the flaws out to those that can see.
cheers al
Ah...ok..
But the alternative theory does have an answer. They used planes, whether actual passenger jets or not as a Shock and Awe tactic. It worked.
I've had someone on this forum, a NP'er try to 'explain' to me that the reason the fakes are so obvious is because they were made by...and I kid you not...
Quote:
the son/daughter of Jeb Bush's second cousin once removed who had pretty good video manipulation skills but had not passed grade 1 physics.
They then went onto explain that it's not easy to get hold of people to participate in Black/Psyops so you have to use someone on the inside.
Surely they could have just 'mind controlled' someone good with vid making AND physics, then erased their memory or even better....imprison them forever in....The Phantom Zone....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
