Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:35 am Post subject: Amateur Video of Second Hit Shows No Plane
Link _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Last edited by prole art threat on Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
I'm pretty sure that footage has been doctored as I remember someone using it to try and convince people there was a third plane in the sky. I also remember seeing that clip and a plane just appears seconds before impact.
It's seems more and more of these doctored pieces of video footage are beginning to appear. All these bogus videos in combination with NPT and the half-baked-bean-weapon are obviously an attempt at derailing the truth movement by muddying the waters. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Crappy video (though it does show some disturbance from the plane). This very slightly better quality one shows clear disturbance along the path the plane takes.
Just as the camera has finished zooming out, if you watch just above the buildings to the left of the towers you'll see the movement of the plane. Which at this zoom and quality would be represented by about a pixel!
Crappy video (though it does show some disturbance from the plane). This very slightly better quality one shows clear disturbance along the path the plane takes.
Just as the camera has finished zooming out, if you watch just above the buildings to the left of the towers you'll see the movement of the plane. Which at this zoom and quality would be represented by about a pixel!
More excuses - for something that was not there.
Why would anyone need to fake anything if there were real planes?
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:48 am Post subject:
Patrick Brown wrote:
I'm pretty sure that footage has been doctored as I remember someone using it to try and convince people there was a third plane in the sky. I also remember seeing that clip and a plane just appears seconds before impact.
It's seems more and more of these doctored pieces of video footage are beginning to appear. All these bogus videos in combination with NPT and the half-baked-bean-weapon are obviously an attempt at derailing the truth movement by muddying the waters.
Patrick, listen to the realistic shock of the couple's voices. They both infer that it wasnt a plane. "a rocket or something.."
I see something but it isnt a plane, it doesnt even look like a misile to me. There is something. The realism is there, in the voices of the people behind that camera. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Why would anyone need to fake anything if there were real planes?
Why?
There is no suggestion that just the organisers/perps of 9/11 are behind 'faked' videos.
The NP theory is known and accepted so, - 'I know, let's mess with some videos and slap them out there to create confusion.'
Why do students sit in their dorm room and write viruses? Because it is fun. I have the capability to manipulate both stills and video footage to a very convincing degree. Any numpty can do it.
Having zoomed back just before impact, the aircraft would be rendered as a tiny dot making it much easier to manipulate - however, there is no doubting that this a very poorly constructed fake.
Perhaps the people behind the camera were sufficiently distant from the WTC to simply not see the aircraft fly in from the left as they were so intent on looking at the tower on fire. There are a number of scenarios - but whichever, the video is a dud. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote;
Quote:
More excuses - for something that was not there.
Why would anyone need to fake anything if there were real planes?
Why?
There is no suggestion that just the organisers/perps of 9/11 are behind 'faked' videos.
The NP theory is known and accepted so, - 'I know, let's mess with some videos and slap them out there to create confusion.'
Why do students sit in their dorm room and write viruses? Because it is fun. I have the capability to manipulate both stills and video footage to a very convincing degree. Any numpty can do it.
Having zoomed back just before impact, the aircraft would be rendered as a tiny dot making it much easier to manipulate - however, there is no doubting that this a very poorly constructed fake.
Perhaps the people behind the camera were sufficiently distant from the WTC to simply not see the aircraft fly in from the left as they were so intent on looking at the tower on fire. There are a number of scenarios - but whichever, the video is a dud.
Tele, please superimpose a plane on that clip and show off your skills. There's a challenge for you. There is NO PLANE on that clip because a plane didnt hit it. Simple as. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Why has the hologram not been captured on film then - why is it missing? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
prole art threat
Why has the hologram not been captured on film then - why is it missing?
Who said there was a hologram? Not me. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Why has the hologram not been captured on film then - why is it missing?
Who said there was a hologram? Not me.
Classic.
When there's firm witness testimony of big boeings they are a hologram.
When there's just talk of an explosion, then it's a computer animation job.
When someone says it's a missile or military aircraft, it's anything but a big boeing.
So there are two NPT camps - those who believe there was just no planes, illusionary or otherwise.
And another who believes there were no real planes, instead they were holograms projected at the time to look like real planes.
Is this correct? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
It is unquestionable that this video has been doctored.
The flight path of the missing aircraft is clearly defined by a blurred line.
At 15 seconds a blurred object appears that then streaks and follows a perfect line into the explosion in the tower. The plane has simply been electronically (and very amateurishly), removed. I am genuinely surprised that anyone is taking this remotely seriously.
Unquestionable, 100% fake.
_________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
What's this? ANOTHER case of genuine video edited to remove planes and misconstrue flight paths?
Any of you NPT's starting to doubt your sources yet?
Thanks for the labels - and the suggestion that the case rests purely on video evidence.
I think TeleC, Fallious and Ferric Mucus are turning into quite a team. Ever thought of appearing "strictly come dancing"? That would be a GREAT show! _________________ Andrew
What's this? ANOTHER case of genuine video edited to remove planes and misconstrue flight paths?
Any of you NPT's starting to doubt your sources yet?
Thanks for the labels - and the suggestion that the case rests purely on video evidence.
I suggested no such thing, but surely you must have second thoughts when video after video that NPT's produce is outed as a fraud?
Just out of interest what is your strongest non video evidence?
Quote:
I think TeleC, Fallious and Ferric Mucus are turning into quite a team. Ever thought of appearing "strictly come dancing"? That would be a GREAT show!
Way to minimize the opposition. Try SnowyGrouch, John White, Chek, Patrick Brown, Thermate, kc, IronSnot, peloloco, andyb, andrewwatson, SHERITON HOTEL, marky 54, James C, scubadiver, TimmyG, numeral, wepmob2000 and many, many more. These people repeatedly draw you up on the same empty articles, repeatedly answering the same stupid questions, repeatedly debunking the same regurgitated advertising spiel that you three spew out.
Sadly we can't cause nearly as much damage as you, Prole and TTWSU3 are capable of. Six NPT posts on the front page of the general forum? All posted by two people? Where's a moderator when you need one?
Any of you NPT's starting to doubt your sources yet?
It's a mess - for sure.
Fallious wrote:
Way to minimize the opposition. Try SnowyGrouch, John White, Chek, Patrick Brown, Thermate, kc, IronSnot, peloloco, andyb, andrewwatson, SHERITON HOTEL, marky 54, James C, scubadiver, TimmyG, numeral, wepmob2000 and many, many more. These people repeatedly draw you up on the same empty articles, repeatedly answering the same stupid questions, repeatedly debunking the same regurgitated advertising spiel that you three spew out.
Thanks for the sentiments - not sure what "regurgitated advertising spiel" you are referring to however.
I know Snowygrouch amd AndyB (to a lesser extent) personally. I have corresponded with Andrew Watson quite few times and once or twice with Patrick Brown. I have corresponded a few times with JamesC (who openly said he doesn't like me - you can easily find the post). I don't know any of the other people you mention outside their board posts.
Fallious wrote:
Sadly we can't cause nearly as much damage as you, Prole and TTWSU3 are capable of. Six NPT posts on the front page of the general forum? All posted by two people? Where's a moderator when you need one?
Lol - damaging the movement by discussing evidence? OK, whatever you say big boy. This thread has had 174 views. Let's add in all the other threads and make a guess - 2000, no let's guess 5000 viewings. That includes all the people contributing too. So I suspect there might be 20 or 30 newbies reading this stuff. This is compared to an audience of millions on TV news bulletins. So the "damage" of which you speak is relatively minor, if you consider it such (I don't).
I have no worry about "looking good" or "bad" - the media print what they like - and have done so (about us) on at least 3 occasions.
I just hope that by being polite and sticking to evidence, people will see through any "spin" tactics that may or may not be being applied or executed. _________________ Andrew
You seem to genuinely have difficulty reading what i've written. Not your fault. I'll help.
Fallious wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Way to minimize the opposition. Try SnowyGrouch, John White, Chek, Patrick Brown, Thermate, kc, IronSnot, peloloco, andyb, andrewwatson, SHERITON HOTEL, marky 54, James C, scubadiver, TimmyG, numeral, wepmob2000 and many, many more. These people repeatedly draw you up on the same empty articles, repeatedly answering the same stupid questions, repeatedly debunking the same regurgitated advertising spiel that you three spew out.
Thanks for the sentiments - not sure what "regurgitated advertising spiel" you are referring to however.
I'm referring to the usual suspects: Flight path comparison video's of badly aligned towers and bean weapon documentaries mainly.
Quote:
I know Snowygrouch amd AndyB (to a lesser extent) personally. I have corresponded with Andrew Watson quite few times and once or twice with Patrick Brown. I have corresponded a few times with James C (who openly said he doesn't like me - you can easily find the post). I don't know any of the other people you mention outside their board posts.
What's that got to do with the price of oil?
Fallious wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Sadly we can't cause nearly as much damage as you, Prole and TTWSU3 are capable of. Six NPT posts on the front page of the general forum? All posted by two people? Where's a moderator when you need one?
Lol - damaging the movement by discussing evidence? OK, whatever you say big boy. This thread has had 174 views. Let's add in all the other threads and make a guess - 2000, no let's guess 5000 viewings. That includes all the people contributing too. So I suspect there might be 20 or 30 newbies reading this stuff. This is compared to an audience of millions on TV news bulletins. So the "damage" of which you speak is relatively minor, if you consider it such (I don't).
I didn't say anything about damaging the movement. I was referring to 'damaging' as you had used it, which I assumed was in regard to the quality of the forums, but apparently you had other things on your mind.
Quote:
I have no worry about "looking good" or "bad" - the media print what they like - and have done so on at least 3 occasions.
I just hope that by being polite and sticking to evidence, people will see through any "spin" tactics that may or may not be being applied or executed.
Except you have no intention of addressing conflicting evidence when it's presented to you. You show no interest in articles which expose fake NPT movies and you hide away as soon as a thread turns sour due to TTWSU3, Proles or Allys venomous rantings.
why are you guys trying to analyse hideously compressed video full of artifacts? I suggest you goto the source then start judging what is where because at the moment you are all arguing about a few pixels!
On that video there... of course there is no plane, it would have been blurred out due to the heavy compression youtube uses. Plus I doubt anyone would be able to see a tiny black speck with the naked eye from that far back anyway.
You guys are just going around in circles. Unless you have the source video then true judgements can't be made.
As someone that used to do graphical work for a living, I know there are ways of taking moving objects out of video, and it's not hard. Just need to use the right software and technique. No one can fully know if any of these videos we see on the net have been doctored for sure. It is clear some people are doctoring these pics and videos to put doubt and confusion out there. _________________
tele,
I have to say when I first watched it I just couldn't see anything, but after your marked images I saw it- and it was very clear.
But it brings up a serious question- where was it before?
After your diagram pointed it out I saw it every time- and it appears above a building, clearly slams into the tower- but why was it first seen there?
Where was it for the rest of its flight path?
It is odd...
The editing was simply 'better' prior to the moment the blob appears. It is not a professional job and as everyone unnecessarily points out, the quality of the video is low which in many ways makes it easier to cast doubt on the faking aspect. If it was a high res original - then anything but perfect manipulation would be obvious. This has been chosen for its artefact ridden qualities.
As for;
Quote:
why are you guys trying to analyse hideously compressed video full of artifacts? I suggest you goto the source then start judging what is where because at the moment you are all arguing about a few pixels!
Because it is the only version supplied by the NPT's. If a better one exists, bring it on. Until that happens this is the only one we have - Robinson spent his time with Man Friday because he was the only other person on the island. I'm sure he would have loved choices too. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
yes... but no solid conclusions can be met by looking at heavily compressed footage. Its a waste of time analysing compressed pixels when other stuff could be investigated (dunno what... but there has to be something else ) _________________
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
)