| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | scar wrote: | | Do you agree media overlay is a logistical impossibility? |
Nope - I remember at least 10 years ago seeing US Sports commentators drawing over the playing field displayed on the screen to describe what was going on. The media, at the top level, are no different from the corrupt politicians managing everything. On this one occasion, they COULD arrange to inject a CGI or Sprite live into the video feed. As one clip says, the reporter on the scene saw an explosion but no plane - the studio corrected him - unless this recording itself is disinformation, it's most peculiar. But this part is obviously the most difficult to prove after the event - as it is not associated with physical evidence and must be decided through the testimony of whistleblowers - if they truly did it. |
I know for a fact that media overlay is possible. Thats not in doubt for me. The argument that theres no way perps could control every camera is what i meant. I believe that is logistically impossible. The risk in that compared to using a real plane is surely obvious? One upload of explosion + no plane and its game over on the whole thing.
The video where the reporter sees no plane doesnt sway me and doesnt need to be disinfo. If he was on the ground and over the other side he wouldnt have seen a plane. Its quite likely he wouldnt see it unless he was on the correct side with a good view, even then at that speed it would be easy to miss with all those buildings in the way/chaos. There was a link from Morgan Reynolds recent semi-hitpiece to some CNN eyewitnesses who just saw it explode with no plane at all. I do agree with your last point. That may be impossible to prove though.
Cheers i'll check that out later when ive had a kip.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | I need to study this part of the argument more closely as I haven't studied his arguments. I am suspicious of whomever introduced the hologram theory and it is often waved around as a method ridiculing the other evidence. I don't go in for the hologram theory - I don't see any evidence for it, or any advantage in doing it. |
Well what of the pic Ally has posted numerous times with the nose of a 'missile' poking out the other side? i guess that could be media overlay also but if so these guys mustve been complete noobs in 3dsmax/maya. Or perhaps it was deliberate - leaving clues for people out of guilt/shame...rather tenuous.
If its a hologram concealing a missile then perhaps that makes a 'bit' more sense?
hmmmm
Ill have to go on a proper search for this green spire clip.. The plane completely disappears as it goes behind that green roofed spire. I have very little experience with cgi animations but im quite sure i could mask that spire and do a better job given a few days to sort out the software. These guys would be experts.
If a holographic projector was behind that spire that would 'sort of' explain it. Perhaps it was faked for disinfo purposes. :shrug:
I dont really go in for the hologram theory either im just tossing ideas about, as time goes by im less and less convinced of this stuff but i keep an open mind. There is much tech us 'civilians' arent aware of...
I dont understand how anyone can be so 100% sure on all this as seen through this thread. Perhaps its due to not examining any counter argument properly? Certain folk give me this fingers in the ears "lalalalalalalalalala" kind of image in my head. hehe
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | If they try to, it will be time to take the evidence even more seriously...!
|
That would make the pod theory our best smoking gun? 
================================================
EDIT: Ive found out why that green spire clip isnt around now...
From Loose Change forum (very likely to be the same one, it was the only clip ive ever seen so blatent as this)
"1) Video can be tampered with. I remember a video going around where the Webfairy claimed in one of the videos the entire plane literally blinked off and then on again. This had been tampered with by removing a frame or two, so it goes to show people are prepared to tamper."
================================================
Last edited by scar on Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
All this talk of holograms is ridiculous. For hours after 911 we were only shown pictures which were filmed by the military helicopters of the South Tower being struck, it wasn't until much later all the 'amatuer' footage appeared, most of it uncredited. Thousands of tourists visited the WTC and many more must have been looking into the skies after the North Tower was struck yet only 30 separate bits of footage exist apparently showing 175. My view is I haven't seen enough evidence to prove an airliner DIDN'T hit but what we have seen appears to me fake. Mainly because I can't disprove those around the WTC who saw a plane impact are lying but we also have people saying they saw F77 hit the Pentagon. In the case of F93, not one single person saw the plane shot down OR hit the ground.
Check out Killtown's collection of all footage known to exist of 175 melting into the wtc, and on some emerging from the other side. I know from my source footage the hits filmed by the millitary helicopters and screened LIVE, on at least two of the four live shots in existence show the 'nose' emerging from the otherside of the wtc, James can argue physics all he likes and I'm not major but that is impossible so the footage is either fake or the 'plane' masks what really is some kind of bunker busking missile.
Every piece of visual evidence in existence which captured what allegedly hit the WTC is compiled here - http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#photos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have been looking at the archive of all known footage kindly posted by Ally
I would be interested to hear the explanation from the "pro planers" as to why there are numerous examples of footage where the plane appears to lose a wing or it's tail.
Correct me if i am wrong - wouldn't the plane crash if for example a wing fell off - surely the only explanation here is that the planes were "ghost planes" and on that basis would fly with no wings at all.
So come on all you pro planers - let's hear your explanation
What do you think James? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bongo said
As for the floors, they were only 150mm to 200mm thick concrete, they would have been easily broken up and leave a 'bite shape' out of the floor (similar to when you take the first bite out of a sandwich.
What evidence to you have to support this statement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | he says it would be like a pencil peircing mosquito netting so how come the wings managed to slice through the reinforced concrete and steel without being sheared off? According to the official acount of the Pentagon hit the wings of F77 'folded back' on impact. |
First of all, the official story of the Pentagon is bogus so why you have used this as an example I don't know.
Secondly, I have never stated it would be like a pencil piercing mosquito netting although the analogy is a good one. Still, you incorrectly make the claim that reinforced concrete was used in the twin towers. Wrong! No reinforced concrete was used in the facade or floors. Go check out the constructional evidence for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
James
are you not going to answer my question about the vanishing wings and tail sections? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: |
Ally you are spot on there mate.
The left wing has already gone into the building and left no mark.
Probably because they had not set off the bombs for another split second |
Still unsure about you Mr Truth. I think you are just jumping on this story for your own nefarious means. Obviously you don't actually understand what the no-plane guys are saying and you probably even confused Ally with your reply above.
The picture you refer to was, according to the no-plane theory, created by CNN. They should have put the explosions in already. Assuming for a stupid minute that no-plane theory were true then the pictures were not meant to tally exctly with the explosions in real life, just happen as close to the time as possible so when real footage is cut in with the fake CNN footage it all works to create the illusion - unless of course you are saying that these were holograms in which case everyone on the ground would have seen them, which according to your later posts you suggest they don't.
So what is that picture you talk about. Was it created by CGI thanks to CNN (or some other studio) or was it a hologram. Only the latter would make your answer above sound sensible and yet you say no one saw the planes!
Do you really know what you are talking about and in which case should anyone listen to you? |
Hi Mr Truth,
I will answer your questions when you answer my question from page 4 which I posted on Friday at 7.09pm.
Perhaps you'd like to include the links to the clips I'm meant to be commenting on with your answer.
Many thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | In the case of F93, not one single person saw the plane shot down OR hit the ground. |
Perhaps you'd like to do a google check on the following names and their association with flight 93.
Rodney Peterson
Brandon Leventry
Terry Butler
Bob Blair
Linda Shepley
Rob Kimmel
Anita McBride
Eric Peterson
Paula Pluta
Tom Fritz
Lee Purbaugh
Tom Thornsberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
James you can see the planes with bits missing on this link posted by Ally
Every piece of visual evidence in existence which captured what allegedly hit the WTC is compiled here -
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#photos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | James you can see the planes with bits missing on this link posted by Ally
Every piece of visual evidence in existence which captured what allegedly hit the WTC is compiled here -
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#photos |
All look convincingly like planes to me.
One interesting clip is of the flash of light on the nose cone just as flight 175 hits the tower. Amazingly, an identical flash of light can be seen on the nose cone of the clip Ally posted which shows the jet hitting the concrete wall.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2499
24 seconds in is the moment of impact (plane going from right to left) and there is the exact same flash.
Looks like the imapct of flight 175 dispays similar characteristics to a real aircraft hitting a wall. I wonder why?
Last edited by James C on Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You honestly think that these poor images can possibly support the argument that these planes are CGI.
Several posts ago you are trumping up the merits of CGI. Now you are saying it has faults which are evident by the clips you post.
Now please answer my question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I take it from your reply that you are unable to answer my question
James I would love to answer your question
You said
Still unsure about you Mr Truth. I think you are just jumping on this story for your own nefarious means. Obviously you don't actually understand what the no-plane guys are saying and you probably even confused Ally with your reply above.
The picture you refer to was, according to the no-plane theory, created by CNN. They should have put the explosions in already. Assuming for a stupid minute that no-plane theory were true then the pictures were not meant to tally exctly with the explosions in real life, just happen as close to the time as possible so when real footage is cut in with the fake CNN footage it all works to create the illusion - unless of course you are saying that these were holograms in which case everyone on the ground would have seen them, which according to your later posts you suggest they don't.
So what is that picture you talk about. Was it created by CGI thanks to CNN (or some other studio) or was it a hologram. Only the latter would make your answer above sound sensible and yet you say no one saw the planes!
Do you really know what you are talking about and in which case should anyone listen to you?
Your message doesn't seem very coherant to me James - can you please be specific about what the question is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Greetings MM,
Compulsive, ain't it...? |
Compulsive? I'd describe it more as 'deeply concerned'. i.e. I'm deeply concerned that this ridiculous discussion of a highly improbable theory, which the evidence clearly does not support, is setting the whole movement up for a fall. The debunkers must be licking their chops at this one.
I said I wasn't going to bother with argueing the case with TRUTH any longer, because it's a ludirous theory. Also, it's pointless to discuss it with him b/c he hasn't even bothered to read Salter's article (that has now been linked 2-3 times) nor does he answer questions directed at him. He just spams more of his own. I'm not going to waste my time with either. I will, however, continue to warn people of how bad this all looks to outsiders.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Minimauve
Please tell me what questions you would like me to answer?
I will answer them right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | I will, however, continue to warn people of how bad this all looks to outsiders. |
Fair enough. I disagree with you in this assessment, due to information posted and people I have corresponded with. Also, I have mentioned several points of the Salter article which concern me too in a previous post.
Can you do a measurement for me please? How long does it take you to type "waste of time"? (I think it takes me about 1 or 2 seconds maybe - water-cooled keyboard, don't ya know.)
Thanks
P.S. It puzzles me why you should be so concerned about some postings on a UK forum. It really does....
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bongo said
"Do you believe that the US and UK governments are capable of lying to the public in order to enter into war's?"
My answer is yes - but what is the significance of this question to the debate on no planes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Minimauve said
I said I wasn't going to bother with argueing the case with TRUTH any longer, because it's a ludirous theory. Also, it's pointless to discuss it with him b/c he hasn't even bothered to read Salter's article (that has now been linked 2-3 times) nor does he answer questions directed at him.
Come on Minimauve - what are the questions you would like me to answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | | This question can wait until we either prove or disprove whether the US authorities lied about September 11th in order to perpetrate illegal wars. |
Spot on. If there was any substance to it, you're exactly right. No-planers are a r s e holes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IronSnot wrote: | | Bongo Brian wrote: | | This question can wait until we either prove or disprove whether the US authorities lied about September 11th in order to perpetrate illegal wars. |
Spot on. If there was any substance to it, you're exactly right. No-planers are a r s e holes. |
very mature mate. Have you ever posted anything of substance here snot? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | Have you ever posted anything of substance here snot? |
Yes, amongst others, the one which you quoted.
I suggest we stick to the evidence as it would be much more productive than coming up with a script for The Lone Gunman - Encore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | I will, however, continue to warn people of how bad this all looks to outsiders. |
Fair enough. I disagree with you in this assessment, due to information posted and people I have corresponded with. Also, I have mentioned several points of the Salter article which concern me too in a previous post. |
Yes, I read your earlier post about that, to which someone else replied. You are right about the tone of his article but i found myself sympathizing with Salter b/c, as you know, I think the whole discussion is a glorious waste of time and energy and why I resent being tricked into reading some of the garbage that is waved in front of our faces as, "undeniable proof".
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Can you do a measurement for me please? How long does it take you to type "waste of time"? (I think it takes me about 1 or 2 seconds maybe - water-cooled keyboard, don't ya know.) |
I should point out that none of my criticisms of the "no planes" theory was directed at you (for the simple reason that you have declared yourself neutral on the subject), so I'm not sure why you seem to be responding in a 'retaliatory' manner (for lack of a better term). If you are asking why I think it's a waste of time to respond on this thread, it's because I am dutiful about reading up on a subject before I post, so that I know at least nominally what I am talking about. That time spent looking into the 'evidence' presented by TRUTH is what I find to be a waste, not the posting itself per se.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | P.S. It puzzles me why you should be so concerned about some postings on a UK forum. It really does.... |
Perhaps it's because I care? Why would that be a puzzle? I would hope everyone cares about how the Truth Movement is perceived since that is the determining factor in the movement's ultimate success (assuming that the goal of the Truth Movement is a re-opened investigation of 911). Forums like this one are an important source of information for people that become interested in 911, so though you might not think so, there is reason to be concerned about postings. Where else are they going to go? The mainstream media?
I first came to this forum via a random search. I stayed because it's active. If there are other forums equally active, I'd much appreciate a link.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To Minimauve
So come on - what are these questions? - be specific and I will give a direct answer.
I think you are an imposter - pretending to be a truth campaigner when in fact you are the complete opposite
The very fact you try and stifle the discussions tells me we are on to something |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MM,
Oh! Thanks! That explains it all!
Plenty of other forums...
LetsRoll,
LooseChange,
Above Top Secret
googl'um!
etc - I think they're even more active! Heck, you could even try the Physics Forum!! My thread ran for 9 months there!
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Prisonplanet takes a stand on the no planes.
I find the logic of the "fallback" compelling but the video the complete opposite.
How could something so fragile as the nose cone of an aircraft have gone through both exterior collumns AND severely damaged the massive central core then come out in apparently pristine condition?
Am I missing something here? It seems this will only add to the debate they are attempting to quell.
Article - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/050906fringetheorie s.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why does everyone keep suggesting that the thing exiting WTC2 is a nose cone ?
It is clearly something that is heavy, intially exits as a defintive shape and with a high momentum.
This alone proves it cannot be an aluminium nose cone surely.
If it is indeed an aircraft piece it has to be an engine doesn't it ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Why does everyone keep suggesting that the thing exiting WTC2 is a nose cone ?
It is clearly something that is heavy, intially exits as a defintive shape and with a high momentum.
This alone proves it cannot be an aluminium nose cone surely.
If it is indeed an aircraft piece it has to be an engine doesn't it ? |
Hi Mark
Agree totally, in all likelihood the engine core would have been the only part of the aircraft dense enough to 'survive' such an impact. This is borne out in numerous excavations of military aircraft that have impacted the ground at high speed.
I looked at the pictures that 'show' the nosecone very closely. Admittedly at a normal resolution the object does look like the front end of a UA 767, complete with the relevant colour scheme. However at high magnifications, most of the 'nosecone' appears translucent, with only the centre of the object being opaque, suggesting the object (whatever it is) is somewhat smaller than the nose of the 767. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
