You want to find out the REAL 9/11 Truth?

[Veronica]

OK … you can do some 9/11 Research of your own?

All we have left is the evidence contained in the various videos WHICH ARE PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN taken at the time.

So, you can scan them and look for all the ‘anomalies’ THAT YOU –WILL- FIND.

Loads of stuff is posted on GoogleVideo & YouTube.

Killtown was kind enough to collect every ‘known’ copy of every 9/11 Video on his own site … so there is PLENTY of material to work with.
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

(You may notice that Killtown puts the word ‘plane’ between quotes because, like me, he knows that there was no plane. Like me, he also knows that it was no ‘hologram’ … but a CGI [Computer-Generated-Insert]. Obviously he has looked at his collection very closely. If you scrutinise the collection yourself, you will come to the same conclusions. You do not need to be a geek. You do not need a load of ‘telecine techo-babble’. You just need your own eyes, and your commonsense.).

How do you examine this material closely?

Well … you need to look Frame-by-Frame.

Here is the ‘kit’ you will need (it’s all free)

VDownloader will create an local AVI of any video from YouTube or GoogleVideo.
http://tanbir.wordpress.com/2006/05/26/vdownloader-02-download-videos- from-youtube-google-video-and-grinvi/
(The MPEG option doesn’t work too well for me … but the AVI option works fine. All you do is to Paste the GoogleVideo or YouTube URL into the URL Box, click “Download” and wait).

Then you need to examine your local AVI Frame-by-Frame.

VirtualDub accomplishes this, but you need to download & install the Video for Windows (VFW) Codecs first of all:
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/K_Lite_Codec_Pack.htm
… will get you the Codecs you need. (When installing, let IT choose those to install)

VirtualDub can be obtained via:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Video/Video-Editors/VirtualDub -MPEG2.shtml

That’s all you will need.

(Don’t forget to post all the anomalies you WILL UNDOUBTEDLY find. You will find yourself writing ‘No-planes’ Research articles in no time flat).

Happy hunting!

Here is an example of what you will find (please note that *not all* detected anomalies are necessarily considered significant. Although they may be. It takes thought & careful consideration to decide)

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOu2Qy0A0s

Loads of ‘anomalies’ in this one, some we are currently working on. One which we noticed – WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE SIGNIFICANT – is this one, between Frames 13331 and 13337 … where the ‘Aspect Ratio’ of the video seems to change. You would NOT see this under normal viewing. Whether or not it is significant is currently debatable … but this video – from end to end – is chock-full of anomallies … which means that ‘things were not quite the way they seem’.

In detail:

Notice that only some "pieces" of the picture move. It looks like a diagonal slice of the top right corner of WTC2 moves, while the rest stays put?

13331-13332 Dramatic smoke shift in front of top floors of WTC2
13333-13334 WTC1 and top right diagonal slice of WTC2 move up.
13334-13335 WTC1 and top right diagonal slice of WTC2 move back down
13335-13336 WTC1 and WTC2 move down, except for top right diagonal slice of WTC2
13336-13337 WTC1 and WTC2 move back up.

The other reason for pointing you to this video is because it also contains the ‘nose-out’ of the back end of WTC2 after the cartoon has hit the front face. I’ll leave to find that. Notice how the fragile aluminium ‘nose’ of this ‘plane’ has ploughed through TWO steel-framed walls, and who knows how many Central Columns … and yet still emerges in a completely recognisable shape. ONLY A CARTOON CAN DO THAT.


Veronics

[John White]

Veronica, here's a genuine question that I wonder if you can help me with:

It seems to me common sense that if "no planes: video fakery" is correct, then it is not some images that have to be faked, but every single peice of footage shot from any angle by anyone: there cannot be any genuine footage anywhere if "a fake in the image" holds water

How can no planes theory succesfully debunk every single image that exists? Do you state that there are no genuine images anywhere?

If not, the only alternative is "an image of a fake": ergo genuine footage of a hologram plane

Or//

That real Planes hit the towers

I am naturally wary of this scenario becuase it also seems to me that, just as "No Planes" theorists can look at anomalous footage and say "Hey look! this peice of footage shows trickery!", by the exact same methods genuine footage could be doctored to make it appear fake: if not all images can be shown to be fake, then this must be the more likely explanation, surely?

[Ally]

Hi Veronica, I enjoyed your last article, gud stuff.

http://www.veronicachapman.com/links/911TruthYouWantSome.htm

[flamesong]

[Ally]

[flamesong]

No, but nobody is suggesting that nothing hit the Pentagon. There is a big difference between making a mistaken aircraft identification and seeing something that wasn't even there.

[Patrick Brown]

Good response flamesong, I'm getting really sick of people (shills) pushing the no planes theory as it is obviously balls. The truth about the 911 is simply those building were brought down by CD. As soon as you tell people the theory it hit's them. Then give them a DVD and they're on the blower as soon as they've watched it say OMG.

All this shilling about no planes mini nukes etc is just an invention to muddy the water and ultimately discredit the community and the truth movement as a whole. But I very much doubt anybody here (!!) believes the no planes theory. As I've said before such posts should be deleted or at least locked.

This will be my last comment on the no planes theory, at least for a while, as it's balls!

[Briaman]

[TimmyG]

stop the bullsh1t.

noone with any sense is buying it

[Ally]

[flamesong]

[Ally]

[nomore]

@Veronica

I have to question your 'anomalies'. In fact, I was so surprised at your arguments that I had to sign up to explain this.

[andyb]

Want to know the REAL truth? Stop peddling this nonsense as truth for one and get campaigning on the real issues. There only seem to be about 5 or 6 people on this forum who support this rubbish and the majority of them don't seem to have the expertise to even explain it so god nkows how they understand it?

[nomore]

One more thing...

...take a look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

Where's the trickery?

[Ally]

[Snowygrouch]

Question for Ally, Veronica etc,

One that NEVER gets answered (by the NPT's anyway)

Explain how the holes in the buildings were faked?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Veronica - you are a breath of fresh air to this forum

These plane huggers are really dim

[nomore]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[andyb]

[flamesong]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Thank you for those kind words Andy

Yep your absolutely right i know F*uck all, but I have the right to make comments as does everybody else

But Ally knows a lot more about it than you as does Veronica

The no planes debate seems to be the one that everybody is trying to suppress - WHY IS THAT?

I have my suspicions that you are a FRAUD

[nomore]

Okay, download this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

View the video frame by frame to where you can see the aeroplane just before it hits the building.

You will see that there appears to be a ghost plane if the look at the wings etc. This could be explained as an interlaced video being converted to a progressive scan video... however, a few frames on, there are three planes. This is classic artifacting from multiple transodings as I explained in my preliminary forum post.

In addition, this seems to be a rarely seen angle. If you apply a highpass, or edge detection filter in some video editing software (I used final-cut express) and advence slowly through the frames, you can see where the impacts causes material from the building to be blasted out. There is no nose cone visible as far as I can tell in this video.

In addition, the very large majority of projectiles coming from the building are from the exit point, not the entry point which shows the explosion had inertia in that direction.

Therefore I counter the point that the holes were caused by explosives.

However, I do believe that the building was demolished with the help of explosives.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Maybe if its proponents could reproduce this hologram/blue screen technology at an agreed time and place we could move on.


We can ask William Rodrigues when he comes over end of this month for his well informed opinion.

[andyb]

[nomore]

[Snowygrouch]

Wrong, neither you nor anyone else has EVER explained the holes in the buildings in any sort of rational way (unless, errrrrr it WAS a plane).

Instead you insult people and avoid it like the plague.

Oh lets take a walk down "sanity alley" shall we:

1: Hundreds of eye witnesses saw jet liners hit
2: There are dozens of photos of debris
3: Smoking jet engines were found
4: Plane shaped holes were made in the buildings
5: Massive fireballs occured when the fuel ignited
6: Dozens of survivors smelled jet fuel
7: Several amateur cameras caught the planes on film
8: There are numerous videos of people pointing at the second plane on its way in

If it looks like a spade, works like a spade, has a handle on one end, has a flat metal blade on the other end.........it probably IS a spade.

A lesson that some people here could well do with learning.

I`d ban the lot of you tomorrow if it was down to me. Not because of "covering up the truth..........ooooooooooohhhhh" but because the whole thing is so bloody ridiculous I cant even belive ANYONE gives it the time of day.

In fact an even better idea, I think this site should have a "no-planes" section like critics corner so we can control the piffle.

I hope you realise the damage youve all collectively done to this forum and our campaign is FAR more than any of the JREF lot.

But I rather suspect you know that perfectly well

Would be nice if site admin realised that too.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Snowy

Please explain why EXPLOSIVES could NOT have made the plane shape holes?

[nomore]