I like the music! Wish those fakery people wouldn't argue though. _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
you have to watch genghis' video "911chameleon p1" to see what this clip is getting at but once you've done that it's obvious that genghis is wrong as usual....
what he claims is "impossible" is in reality entirely possible if you create a 3D model and look at it from different perspectives. something that genghis should really have verified himself before making his claims - but he's either a very sloppy researcher or deliberately trying to deceive (or both).
as well as appearing to be mentally ill (see HERE for more info) genghis simply doesn't understand perspective and that real life takes place in 3D and not 2D (see HERE for more info). the trouble is that he won't stop making the same claims no matter how many times he's proved wrong.
the only thing that's different about 911 chameleon is that his taste seems to have changed a bit - genghis' other "planes crashing into buildings and killing hundreds of people set to music" videos that I've seen have had more of a nu-metal vibe - but take away the loud music, big coloured letters, misleading statements and careful video editing - and it's just the usual reality-defying stupidity that is typical of the genre.... _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:19 am Post subject:
The staggering thing is that the spatial awareness of the no planers seems to be so impaired that a model is required to clarify things for them.
That a whole sub cult has emerged base on assumed ideas about the capabilities of electronic imaging technology combined with an apparently widespread perception deficiency is ... interesting, to say the least. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
it seems you are relying on video evidence of the 'plane', that has not been verified as authentic by any experts, to prove your point.
even if the model shows the flightpaths are roughly the same that does not mean the 'planes' depicted are not cgi.
if we are to use the video evidence to compare flightpaths, then an explaination is needed for the 'object' seen at 1.09 - 1.15
Who knows, maybe it is a UFO afterall, but would it be a real or a fake one? Perhaps you could ask that question at the next sermon at the church of tvf...?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:22 am Post subject:
jfk wrote:
it's certainly not a plane
Please explain the reasons for your use of "certainly".
Within the context of aircraft shape, direction of travel, view angle and camera resolution.
I deduce what you actually mean is that you wouldn't like it to be a plane because of your beliefs, but that's no basis for claiming certainty. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
That was quick. There was a sermon last night then.
Please tell the congregation that this answer will not suffice.
During the next speaking-in-tongues session, please ask the Lord of the Trance to provide you all with a longer, more detailed verse to blea - I mean repeat ad nauseum.
Remember to ask...
Why he compares a clip of 13 secs with one of 4 secs.
Why he chooses to ignore the issue of PERSPECTIVE as in the 3d model as shown above.
What he thinks of the Pirelli plane crash in 2002 which bears all the same hallmarks parroted by tvf'ers.(see links below)
Then after asking him, pay careful attention to his answer.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:07 am Post subject:
Lee wrote:
jfk wrote:
it's certainly not a plane
That was quick. There was a sermon last night then.
Please tell the congregation that this answer will not suffice.
During the next speaking-in-tongues session, please ask the Lord of the Trance to provide you all with a longer, more detailed verse to blea - I mean repeat ad nauseum.
7In the same way, lifeless instruments like the flute or harp produce sounds. But if there's no difference in the notes, how can a person tell what tune is being played? 8For example, if a bugle doesn't sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9In the same way, unless you speak an intelligible message with your language, how will anyone know what is being said? You'll be talking into the air!
Couldn't resist it. _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Here is a pictorial explanation for jfk...again - *sigh* - in the hope that he will one day break free from his cult-conditioning.
jfk wrote:
well, well, if "the object" IS a 'plane', why is it not in this shot?
at 8. 38
The 'object' jfk is referring to is this as seen in the first video he posted on this thread...
You can see it, the small dark spot at the top right of the screen, directly vertical with the pyramid topped building to the right of wtc1.
Note the screen-shot time of 1:09.
It then sweeps down to the top right corner of the north tower taking around six seconds to do so.
Note 1:15...
Note the time 1:15. It then disappears behind both towers on its way to impact at 1:20.
Note 1:20. That's around 5 seconds from the plane disappearing behind the towers to impact.
Now...
Below is the shot in question from the second video jfk posted on this thread when he says...
jfk wrote:
well, well, if "the object" IS a 'plane', why is it not in this shot?
at 8. 38
It actually starts as seen at 8:37
"Where's the plane!? TV fakery alert!!!" Screams jfk...
Then we see 5 seconds later...8:42...impact.
So...the vid-screenshot at 8:37 from the second jfk vid is the same point in time as the vid-screenshot at 1:15 from the first jfk vid...i.e. the plane is just disappearing behind the towers in both shots...5 seconds from impact...
1:15 to 1:20 in first vid.
8:37 to 8:42 in second vid.
Simple really.
The shot that the plane is 'not' in according to jfk starts from the point at which the plane is disappearing behind the towers in the first video he posted on this thread.
The reason jfk cant see it is because it's just about to disappear behind the towers. But, not realizing that both clips are not the same length, he's looking for it at the point at which it appears in the first clip i.e. vertically above the pyramid topped building.
If you watch the second vid he posted at 8:37 onwards, taking into account the flight path of the 'object' in the first vid you can see it just disappearing behind the north tower at the same location that the 'object' does in the first.
You need to have your wits about you to see it at 8:37 - 39 so that discounts jfk.
hi jfk - here's another thing for you and your fellow npt sheeple to consider....
why do you think that the npt/tvfakery disinfo depends on images of such low quality and resolution?
let's pretend for the sake of argument that the person in this photo is really you, and you're standing in the street wearing this t-shirt which, as you can see, has been decorated with a slogan.
everything looks pretty clear doesn't it?
but what if I took a series of photos of you standing in the same place, wearing the same t shirt and using the same camera settings - but from a few yards further away each time?
if we looked at these photos, the image of you would get smaller and the slogan on your t shirt would become more and more difficult to read. As I moved further back I'd soon reach a distance from which you could still see that there was something on your shirt, but you wouldn't be able to make out the individual letters. Eventually I'd reach a distance from which you couldn't see the slogan at all - just a brown shirt.
if we blew up this particular photo so the image of you was the same size as the one above - but with no slogan visible - would this mean that it was never there?
and in the blown-up photo you would also look very blurred and rather different from how you'd normally expect - would this mean that the photo was fake? _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject:
Hello again fellow 911 Truth seekers!
And hello of course to jfk.
Jfk, I found myself curious as to why, after every so-called piece of 'proof' or even 'evidence' you have ever offered has been shown to be absolute knobbins, you still persist like a Tottenham Court Rd. scientologist.
So I'm curious as to what the crucial thing is that drives your belief. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:56 am Post subject:
Think it must be his belief which drives his belief _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
The thread starts with the claim of different flightpaths and backgrounds (as it was NOT the same angle) being utterly and completly debunked, then jfk tries some other lame argument which falls on it's face in no time at all, and THEN comes back to the initial debunked point - as though the debunking never happened.
I'm not trying to be abusive but I think you should get a brain scan - something very wrong is going on inside your skull.... _________________
I reckon that there's a small cadre of npt sheeple whose role it is to promote the videos of simon shack et al in forums like this one.
whenever a new video comes out they are told to post it and are given some instructions about what brainless remarks to make about the video. then - after it inevitably gets debunked - they are all zapped with one of those "Men in Black" memory-remover thingys and sent back with a new video.... _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Joined: 05 Sep 2007 Posts: 103 Location: In a camper
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject:
Holy crapola!
Are these people still going on and on about "no planes" based on over compressed,edited and out of focus video shot on camcorders at maximum zoom by overexcited Americans?
is "nose out" still doing the rounds jfk?
some people have got more imagination than sense.....
I have been away from the net for most of this year and thought a bit naively that this nonsense would have faded away.... _________________ Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground.
David Icke
The thread starts with the claim of different flightpaths and backgrounds (as it was NOT the same angle) being utterly and completly debunked,
why do you think the angle is different?
It wasn't - the camera angle was different - have you even watched the video in the leading post???
Watch it carefully, and then see if you can be big enough to back down, renounce no-planes and join the ranks of the sane.
Honestly I promise you we will not brag or bray - we will respect you immensely if you find your self man enough to admit you were wrong.
It's far worse that you continue with these debunked theories just to avoid admitting you were wrong. We've all been wrong before - there's no shame in it, the only shame is in letting pride get in the way of admitting it. _________________
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject:
mr nice wrote:
Holy crapola!
Are these people still going on and on about "no planes" based on over compressed,edited and out of focus video shot on camcorders at maximum zoom by overexcited Americans?
is "nose out" still doing the rounds jfk?
some people have got more imagination than sense.....
I have been away from the net for most of this year and thought a bit naively that this nonsense would have faded away....
Afraid so
Some conspiracy hobbiests wont give up the safety zone of keeping it just how they can handle it: a hobby
So talking the same nonsense about the same nonsense for over a year gives them a sense of catharsis yet also a feeling of safety: I believe on some level because they know they arnt doing anything important and may be able to put their heads down and play harmless looney when the * comes down for the real activists who actually want to challenge things
Well it was their time to waste and time is running out
That's the truth of it IMHO _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
1: Do you accept, after watching the video at the top of this thread, that perspective plays a massive role in the perceived differences in the videos of flight paths?
2: Can you admit to yourself, after considering the analysis of the two shots (which according to yourself are different because the object appears in one and not in the other) that the 'object' in the first video doesn't appear in the second because the second shot starts at the point at which the 'object' dissappears behind the North Tower?
3: Have you accepted that comparing a shot of 13 seconds with one of 4 seconds (as in 9/11 Chameleon) and completely different perspectives is not a legitimately or 'scientifically' sound method of proving that two shots are different and therefore fake?
4: Have you considered that if the 'evidence' which is at the core of tvf/npt (i.e. plane slicing into a building, little wreckage of a plane found, media employees central to the reporting of the event, eyewitnesses saying they didn't see a plane, etc) can be observed in a 'real' plane crash event, (see 2002 pirelli plane crash in Milan) that then weakens the claims that that core evidence proves tvf/npt?
5: If the many video-editing software moguls that you worship (Shack, Genghis wotsit etc) continue to compare clips of different lengths and perspectives, does that fact in itself inherantly mean that there will fundamentally be differences in the videos of flight paths?
Please answer the questions jfk. People are watching and awaiting your answers. Your reputation, integrity and intelligence hang upon your readiness to engage in the counter-evidence and incorporate it into your mind-set.
Can you prove to us that you are not a relentless limpet shill?
1: Do you accept, after watching the video at the top of this thread, that perspective plays a massive role in the perceived differences in the videos of flight paths?
2: Can you admit to yourself, after considering the analysis of the two shots (which according to yourself are different because the object appears in one and not in the other) that the 'object' in the first video doesn't appear in the second because the second shot starts at the point at which the 'object' dissappears behind the North Tower?
3: Have you accepted that comparing a shot of 13 seconds with one of 4 seconds (as in 9/11 Chameleon) and completely different perspectives is not a legitimately or 'scientifically' sound method of proving that two shots are different and therefore fake?
4: Have you considered that if the 'evidence' which is at the core of tvf/npt (i.e. plane slicing into a building, little wreckage of a plane found, media employees central to the reporting of the event, eyewitnesses saying they didn't see a plane, etc) can be observed in a 'real' plane crash event, (see 2002 pirelli plane crash in Milan) that then weakens the claims that that core evidence proves tvf/npt?
5: If the many video-editing software moguls that you worship (Shack, Genghis wotsit etc) continue to compare clips of different lengths and perspectives, does that fact in itself inherantly mean that there will fundamentally be differences in the videos of flight paths?
lee, i agree with you about the different time periods of the video's, i am still not convinced that the 'object' is a boeing.
to say that there are different viewing angles/perspectives in the last vid i posted, when they are blatantly the same is something i do not agree with.
even if the angles are not the same, why is there NO BACKGROUND in one of them!
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject:
Tony - when you get a mo - could you change jfk's tag to 'relentless, time wasting, half-wit shill'?
In the interests of accuracy only.
And who knows?
It may act as a deterrent though given the rock-botttom mental processes amply illustrated it may not work on jfk, but perhaps it may to others. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
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
...???
still doing the rounds jfk?