"I have analysed the composition of this video, and the claims it makes. I now firmly believe that the video creator purposefully misrepresents numerous features of the two clips used, and combines them incorrectly with an aim to setting the plane flight paths as far apart as possible.
...
Whoever made "New Video Overlay proves clearly 9/11 TV Fakery" was not interested in honestly exposing a genuine conflict in flight paths. The short was specifically designed to dupe anyone who might view it"
Last edited by Fallious on Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
"I have analysed the composition of this video, and the claims it makes. I now firmly believe that the video creator purposefully misrepresents numerous features of the two clips used, and combines them incorrectly with an aim to setting the plane flight paths as far apart as possible.
...
Whoever made "New Video Overlay proves clearly 9/11 TV Fakery" was not interested in honestly exposing a genuine conflict in flight paths. The short was specifically designed to dupe anyone who might view it"
Now you've gone and added all the complexities of having to exist in a 3D world to the NPT universe...
That's a good find, Fallious. It perfectly puts into words what we have been able to visualise.
I think there is some nefarious network who keep throwing garbage out as a distraction - probably knowing full well that they aren't fooling most of us but that there are enough credulous ones amongst us who will keep biting.
As is often (usually?) the case with articles which claim to debunk things, they champion their case by apparently disproving one piece of evidence and then an air of smugness prevails.
There are still several other pieces of evidence which I yet to see successfully explained:
1) Delayed fireball on 2nd impact
2) Projectile emerging from second impact (white flash with a smokey trail)
3) Inflated aircraft tyre under scaffolding with no apparent crater damage
4) Aluminium plane wing cutting through steel girders (breaks laws of physics a la kerosene melting steel)
Kinda worries me that this site has a MOD whose a No Planer?
Tyres bounce, aluminium wings full of fuel travelling at 4-500mph can cut steel no problem at all. You think the wings are made of Bacofoil or something? Wings, for your information, are designed to be STRONG particularly on the leading edge, for obvious reasons. _________________ Make love, not money.
Kinda worries me that this site has a MOD whose a No Planer?
Tyres bounce, aluminium wings full of fuel travelling at 4-500mph can cut steel no problem at all. You think the wings are made of Bacofoil or something? Wings, for your information, are designed to be STRONG particularly on the leading edge, for obvious reasons.
it violates Newton's Laws of Motion
why is there no break in the building between the left engine and fuselage?
As retired aerospace engineer Joseph Keith says:
"The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
Oh please Do you have any idea how much force is concentrated along the leading edge of those wings? Mass of plane + mass of fuel + mass of people/luggage(possibly) + 500mph?
Your sole piece of evidence for No Plane Theory comes from 1 frame of a compressed (the compression method averages frames so save size) low resolution video. But you choose to believe that single frame is real and disregard the impossibility of forging all the other evidence/eyewitness testimony for planes. Distraction at its best. _________________ Make love, not money.
Oh please Do you have any idea how much force is concentrated along the leading edge of those wings? Mass of plane + mass of fuel + mass of people/luggage(possibly) + 500mph?
Your sole piece of evidence for No Plane Theory comes from 1 frame of a compressed (the compression method averages frames so save size) low resolution video. But you choose to believe that single frame is real and disregard the impossibility of forging all the other evidence/eyewitness testimony for planes. Distraction at its best.
I'll say again.... it violates Newton's Laws of Motion
As is often (usually?) the case with articles which claim to debunk things, they champion their case by apparently disproving one piece of evidence and then an air of smugness prevails.
The objective of this article is to 'fix' the short movie it analyses and show the creator to be knowingly subverting the available evidence to create a scenario of "New Video Overlay proves clearly 9/11 TV Fakery". Which the creator knows to be a lie. How does that make you feel?
1- "They headed straight for it"
2- "That wasn't a plane?"
1- "looked like a rocket or something"
2- "It was?"
1- "Yeah it was fast"
Judging by the camera angle, the planes wings wouldn't have been visible. The guys justification for calling it a rocket was that it was moving so fast, which we know is true - far faster than a jumbo jet should be moving.
Where's the wirtness video's from the south side of the towers saying there was no plane?
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:55 am Post subject: like a rocket, indeed
Well Fallious,
You're right about the wings, I suppose. And that tremendous speed. Here is the same event from a different angle. This time however the plane is gliding along in a much calmer fashion. No rocket here you see. Now the first, I believe authentic, witness says like a rocket, yet the second vid pays mute testimony to a relatively leisurely approach, don't you think?
It is tricky, isn't it?
PS As for the first hit there is no footage in existence as yet which could really convince anyone that they are seeing a passenger jet flying into the tower. However if you can find one, please don't hesitate to post it.
Last edited by alwun on Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: whatever
I have no idea how much speed to expect. I am content to allow all good people to make up their own minds as to whether the events in the two clips above actually show the same phenomenon.
I notice that you venture the un-necessary opinion that a dip then a climb is observable "same as in all the videos".
Now, since this is manifestly untrue, it is almost as if that statement was made simply as a pre-emptive attempt to account for that odd jump upwards that the glider plane "coming almost directly towards the camera" has to make in order to reappear from behind the church-like building at such a new altitude.
Here yet again is the same event from yet another angle. Now look sharply for that 'dip and a climb' that is the "same in all the videos", because my poor ailing eyes, much as I want them to, just can't quite see the 'dip and a climb' which is the "same in all the videos".
Tell me please Fallious - at which second does the "dip" start in this clip? And at which moment does that famous "climb" begin in this clip?
The plane is already flying downward. That's what it does fairly constantly till it reaches the towers and yes, again in the last 1.5 seconds the plane clearly levels out though its rotation masks the majority of the climb, I at least can see a good 5 floors worth of climb here.
Why do all these NPT clips have no sound?
Thinking about it, there's another little practical experiment you can do here. Stick you finger out in front of you at arms length and hold it roughly where the plane is in relation to the camera (i'd say the camera is aming about 30* upward). Now move your finger back and forth toward your face and away along the line you are facing. It will seem not to change height in relation to your view or objects in the background.
Last edited by Fallious on Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Come on Ally you're not even trying. We know from pretty much every shot that as the second plane comes in, the north towers smoke is billowing directly over the top of the south tower.
The plane in the second image you show is one second from impact (so very close to the tower) The plane in the first shot is over three seconds from impact moving at ~550 MPH.. come on... whatever next?
Last edited by Fallious on Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: back to front
It is the inconsistencies that abound in almost all of the unsourced clips(many with with no soundtrack as you point out), that have given rise to the No Plane mutterings.
And not the other way round. These clips have for the most part been proffered by MSM with absolutely no provenance.
Like a car with 100,000miles on the clock and no service history. Buy them if you like.
I see no 'climb' in the vid. You are very good with precise measurements and the dissection of clips, so - show me at which second on that clip the dip starts and the climb up five floors begins.
Come on Ally you're not even trying. We know from pretty much every shot that as the second plane comes in, the north towers smoke is billowing directly over the top of the south tower.
The plane in the second image you show is one second from impact (so very close to the tower) The plane in the first shot is over three seconds from impact moving at ~550 MPH.. come on... whatever next?
The plane in the second image you show is one second from impact (so very close to the tower) The plane in the first shot is over three seconds from impact moving at ~550 MPH.. come on... whatever next?
Talking out your bush there mate as the park foreman video clip lasts more than 3 seconds and comes in at a straight angle, NOT right to left, you merely analysed the foto and lied.
Will you concede ANY of the '175' clips are FAKE.
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:00 am Post subject: Re: back to front
alwun wrote:
It is the inconsistencies that abound in almost all of the unsourced clips(many with with no soundtrack as you point out), that have given rise to the No Plane mutterings.
No.. That's a CNN clip, it had sound, just like all the other clips no planers throw around, it's had it muted. Why?
And not the other way round. These clips have for the most part been proffered by MSM with absolutely no provenance.
Like a car with 100,000miles on the clock and no service history. Buy them if you like.
More BS. 95% of the clips have known sources. By that I mean credited camera men and women.
Quote:
I see no 'climb' in the vid. You are very good with precise measurements and the dissection of clips, so - show me at which second on that clip the dip starts and the climb up five floors begins.
Wouldn't it be a nice exercise for you to try this? You never stop playing this "independent" card, saying you are looking for the truth, but all I've had from you is question - ignore answer - next question. Do your own research, this is actually a very easy clip to explain and sure if you don't get it i'll do an article on it some time soon.
Last edited by Fallious on Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:05 am; edited 1 time in total
The plane in the second image you show is one second from impact (so very close to the tower) The plane in the first shot is over three seconds from impact moving at ~550 MPH.. come on... whatever next?
Talking out your bush there mate as the park foreman video clip lasts more than 3 seconds and comes in at a straight angle, NOT right to left, you merely analysed the foto and lied.
Will you concede ANY of the '175' clips are FAKE.
Lasts longer than 3 seconds? what are you on about, i'm telling you from the position the planes are at in your pointless photos.
What are you doing back here anyway? I thought you called everyone on this site c*nts?
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:20 am Post subject:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Fallious wrote:
Come on Ally you're not even trying. We know from pretty much every shot that as the second plane comes in, the north towers smoke is billowing directly over the top of the south tower.
The plane in the second image you show is one second from impact (so very close to the tower) The plane in the first shot is over three seconds from impact moving at ~550 MPH.. come on... whatever next?
SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE?
Pwning NPT, one imagines _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
fallacious - intended to deceive; "deceitful advertising"; "fallacious testimony"; "smooth, shining, and deceitful as thin ice" - S.T.Coleridge;
dishonest, dishonorable - deceptive or fraudulent; disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive
or. fallacious - based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information; "fallacious hope"
incorrect, wrong - not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; "an incorrect calculation"; "the report in the paper is wrong"; "your information is wrong"; "the clock showed the wrong time"; "found themselves on the wrong road"; "based on the wrong assumptions"
Ally
1. One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: entered the war as an ally of France.
2. One in helpful association with another: legislators who are allies on most issues
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
Do you have any idea how much force is concentrated along the leading edge of those wings? Mass of plane + mass of fuel + mass of people/luggage(possibly) + 500mph? 
