View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No Plane Video
"That wasn't a plane"
"It was a rocket it something"
"It didn't go all the way in, it zinged it....."
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yet again - the camera very conveniently zoomed out so that the impact is fuzzy. Whatever there is no plane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 86 Location: Flintshire
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
At that distance neither witnesses could discern the shape. it's a probability they could only see the fuselage at that distance. Both witnesses would have been focussing on WTC1, thus the plane would have just been in their peripheral vision for a split second.
What this footage does prove however, is there was no CGI, no hologram. There was a physical object that hit the tower. There is a frame or who that shows a dark mass in the sky prior to the explosion.
So much for only a dozen witnesses!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb wrote: | At that distance neither witnesses could discern the shape. it's a probability they could only see the fuselage at that distance. Both witnesses would have been focussing on WTC1, thus the plane would have just been in their peripheral vision for a split second.
What this footage does prove however, is there was no CGI, no hologram. There was a physical object that hit the tower. There is a frame or who that shows a dark mass in the sky prior to the explosion.
So much for only a dozen witnesses! |
it's a probability...blahblah, please capture the frame where this dark mass is that you're hallucinating. As the bloke said, 'it just exploded'.
So how many witnesses have you counted? a thousand? bwaaaa
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
There was a physical object that hit the tower. There is a frame or who that shows a dark mass in the sky prior to the explosion.
Please show us the frame
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 86 Location: Flintshire
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair question.
Here are a set of frames from 15 sec approx in. I've taken it from the YouTube footage so it is obviously heavily compressed. I can't confirm the first 3 frames are sequential as I was using the pause button. The last frame is there as reference of the initial impact. I also used the top of the bridge (in front of WTC) as reference.
If you watch the footage focussing on that area you will see movement recorded in line with the explosion. My only caveat is that the footage is heavily compressed and this could be a result of that.
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
49.4 KB |
Viewed: |
60 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banish Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: No Plane here |
|
|
Calling the jpg image by the title "plane.jpg" was a nice touch.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Briaman Minor Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 39
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: No plane here |
|
|
You're absolutely right Banish - there's no clear image of a plane flying into the towers in the pictures above.
There's also no clear images of the towers themselves - just couple of fuzzy rectangles. The towers themselves would have to be proper 3d objects which would mean that they must have sides however the blobs shown here seem to be missing their sides. The blobs are also clearly out of all proportion to the surrounding blobs. This unequivocal evidence clearly indicates that not only were the planes photoshopped onto the screen - the towers were too. The real towers must have been dismantled earlier if indeed they ever existed. The few 'survivors' who say that they were in the towers on the day or lost relatives there are obviously just establishment shills.
I call this the no-towers theory and invite you all to discuss it freely alongside the no-planes theory. It's an important theory because if true it constitutes undeniable proof that the whole thing was part of a conspiracy. Of course - I can't prove that its true. But you can't prove that its not true and I'm so certain of the rightness of this idea that I'll call anyone who says otherwise a blind fool or an establishment shill / zionist pig / lizard lover / or something else equally constructive.
This is all a bit too much for me so I'm going to wipe the foam from my mouth and go and have a lie down.
_________________ Error in module creativity.dll : unable to create witty comment.
Abort / Retry / Ignore |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 86 Location: Flintshire
|
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok ya right, I cant say its a plane cos it just a line of dark pixels. I named the file with a smile on my face so ya got me there Banish. However, there is definite movement of something on the same level to where the tower was struck approx 15secs into the film.
I'm grateful for your post Briaman as I gives me the opportunity to explain why I'm so anti the 'no planes' theory.
You stated Quote: | Of course - I can't prove that its true | No you can't because you need to include so many unknown or assumptive elements to support it. It's very bad practice to explain one unknown with another unknown (ie 3D projection for example).
Then you say Quote: | But you can't prove that its not true | That's the crux of it. I don't have to. The burden of proof is with the proposer of the theory not the detractor.
I'll finally add that I hope your not implying I photoshopped this myself? These frames were taken for the YouTube footage. anyone can recreate them exactly the same - pixel for pixel. Or are you saying the videographer doctored the footage?
Regs
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 86 Location: Flintshire
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | The windows in the buildings in the foreground (In the still shot) are likely to be the same size as the plane (taking perspective into account) and you cannot even see any details or any windows in the foreground at all... not surprising there is no plane in this photo... Who comes up with this stuff... Mr Magoo? |
This is entirely the point I'm making. The size of the object is immaterial as the averaging of compression could make it longer/shorter etc. It may be the result of the compression itself. (I did say that before).
The whole point is that nothing can be proved by this footage. End of...
PS I didn't quite get what you were saying about angles - went above my head. If the plane came in at angle rather on a flat trajectory then the 'object' may just be a compression blip but my assumption was that the 'object' was only a couple of blocks away that angles didn't have an effect. But if I'm wrong there I'm wrong and more than happy to stand corrected. I for one do not want to be a creator of myths!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|