911 PLANERS still taken in by CNN,FOX nazi propaganda films?

[mason-free party]

StillDiggin/BFN: "The WESCAM concept" (09/30)
StillDiggin/BFN: "The WESCAM concept" (09/30)

Sun Oct 1, 2006 -Updates at http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7666

see also:
What is 9/11 TV Fakery? Pt.5.1001
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cFfvQJ1r9-Q



http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7638
Sat Sep 30, 2006
By StillDiggin (also picked up at: http://www.911blogger.com/node/3318)



For some reason, there are many people who lack the common sense/visual ability to understand that the nature of the WTC "plane impacts" are physically impossible.

People either "get that" or they don't. Those who don't, keep getting hung up on the speed of the plane - thinking if a weaker object hits a stronger object fast enough, not only can it overcome it - it will remain completely intact.

So the next time I find myself barreling toward a steel building in my car, I have to remember to hit the gas, so my car won't get damaged until I'm inside the building.

And that's just my common sense. When you add in all the other evidence out there, it's just so obvious to me that I'm dumbfounded that people still haven't agreed on this point.

Maybe that's why "no planers" seem to be so adamant. No matter how hard they try, they can't seem to get their point across to the majority of the movement.

The helicopter that captured the only "live" shot of the second plane was equipped with a WESCAM system. This is the same technology that is able to superimpose a first down marker on a football field, while not appearing on a player who crosses it. Subsequent replays showing the plane could also have been "ready to go." As for the rest of the 16 or so total videos and the Naudet film, they had all kinds of time to create those.

See WESCAM in "FOX?" chopper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiq66fdSTM4

Think about it. All the helicopter had to do was stabilize, line up the shot, insert the plane/first down marker using a couple of test runs off air, and then detonate the explosion, timing it with the on air image. This would be pretty easy to time if the detonator were in the same helicopter as the camera.

This is the same reason why nobody can ever get all the plane approach angles to line up. Because of the position and angle of the helicopter shot, they never had to line up the plane with the hole, nor did any of the early videos that don't show the impact face.



Editors of the later videos had to actually line up the plane with the hole; they needed more time to synchronize everything. When did the first video that showed both the hole and the plane first get released? Not anytime soon, I'll bet.

No matter how hard they try, the subsequent angles will never line up with the "live" shot, because the "live" shot wasn't accurate enough, because it didn't need to be (nor did the early replays that didn't show the hole). In fact, the early replays probably show the greatest approach discrepancy, due to the lack of time they would have had to "process" what the "live" footage actually portayed.

When you add this analysis in with the varying plane-speed calculations between different videos, it makes for an awefully compelling argument.

Of course, this logistical analysis is based on assumptions - but they're pretty logical assumptions in my opinion...
_________________
NO more Disinformation - NO more Deceit - NO more Greed - NO more Corruption
NO more MASONIC GOVERNMENT bs!
LONG LIVE TRUTH & FREEDOM!
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html

[Fallious]

Lets preface this with an introduction to the same users post which precedes the one you've quoted:

"After reviewing some of the material regarding "eyewitness" accounts, as well as the option of CGI implants, I no longer believe in the theory I presented in my previous post."

In other words, "after looking at evidence, seeing it doesn't fit my previous theory, and finding some more appetising tripe to eat... etc." This obviously raises questions about his research methods, and his understanding of the theory he seems so adamant to push. Now lets begin...

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Fallious

You have doctored the quote from logical to read ilogical - you clearly wish to disrupt this forum

[Fallious]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

You need help

What is a psychopath?
A psychopath is defined as having no concerns for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lack insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative, and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love.

Love being a very subjective experience, it is difficult to determine whether psychopaths do not experience it at all or experience it in a way foreign to conventional experiences. For instance, many define love through corresponding actions, not just words. Since psychopaths cause harm through their actions it is assumed that they are not attached to the people they harm; however, according to the Checklist, psychopaths are also careless in the way they treat themselves by failing to alter their behavior in a way that would prevent them from enduring future discomfort. This makes it difficult to fathom how they can have "a grandiose sense of self worth" yet repeatedly put themselves at risk through their own behavior. Joseph Newman contends that the behavior displayed by psychopaths is the result of "an inability to process contextual cues," which makes it difficult to label all their emotions as "shallow" rather than opaque beneath the plethora of bad behavior. [2]

It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience.

Most studies of the psychopath have taken place among prison populations, though it has often been suggested that the psychopath is just as likely to sit on a Board of Directors as behind bars, concealing his true nature behind a well crafted "Mask of Sanity" (also the title of the one of the first definitive studies of psychopathy, written by Hervey M. Cleckley in 1941.)

Cleckley defined psychopathy thus:[7]

Superficial charm and average intelligence.
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations.
Unreliability.
Untruthfulness and insincerity.
Lack of remorse or shame.
Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
Poor judgement and failure to learn from experience.
Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
General poverty in major affective reactions.
Specific loss of insight.
Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink, and sometimes without.
Suicide threats rarely carried out.
Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated.
Failure to follow any life plan.
It has been shown that punishment and behavior modification techniques do not improve the behavior of a psychopath. They have been regularly observed to respond to both by becoming more cunning and hiding their behavior better. It has been suggested that traditional therapeutic approaches actually make them, if not worse, then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also untreatable.

Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behaviour.


[edit] Diagnostic criteria (PCL-R test)
In contemporary research and clinical practice, psychopathy is most commonly assessed with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), which is a clinical rating scale with 20 items. Each of the items in the PCL-R is scored on a three-point (0, 1, 2) scale according to specific criteria through file information and a semi-structured interview.


[edit] Psychopathy's relationship with other mental health disorders
Psychopathy, as measured on the PCL-R, is negatively correlated with all DSM-IV Axis I disorders except substance-abuse disorders. Psychopathy is most strongly correlated with DSM-IV antisocial personality disorder. PCL-R Factor 1 is correlated with narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. PCL-R Factor 2 is particularly strongly correlated to antisocial personality disorder and criminality.

PCL-R Factor 2 is associated with reactive anger, anxiety, increased risk of suicide, criminality, and impulsive violence. PCL-R Factor 1, in contrast, is associated with extroversion and positive affect. Factor 1, the so-called core personality traits of psychopathy, may even be beneficial for the psychopath (in terms of nondeviant social functioning).


[edit] Pseudopsychopathic personality disorder
It has been suggested that people can suffer apparently psychopathic personality changes from lesions or damage of the brain's frontal lobe. This is sometimes called Pseudopsychopathic personality disorder or Frontal lobe disorder.

One well-known and dramatic case was that of Phineas Gage, a railroad work supervisor. According to Renato M. E. Sabbatini, an explosive charge was set. When it detonated, a steel rod was accidentally driven through Gage's skull from his left cheek to above the right brow.[8]

Incredibly, he survived for many years. According to the common account, his personality changed completely. He became abusive, aggressive, deceitful, irresponsible and incapable of insight and planning (a poor sense of consequence). Computerised reconstruction of the possible brain damage suggest that, from his known injuries he seemed likely to have had a lesion on the ventromedial frontal cortex.

However, Malcolm Macmillian's recent research into the Gage case[9] shows evidence that many of the so-called "psychopathic" features were never documented by physician John Harlow, the primary source, or the Harvard physicians who examined him intensively in Boston. No police records or newspaper accounts can be founds for Gage's alleged, drunken behavior or violence, nor any record of his mother complaining to Dr. Harlow, despite being in contact for years.

Macmillan suggests that claims of deceitfulness, social coarsening and loutish behavior, in Harlow's report to the medical society, lack justification. His research also showed that Gage was able to hold steady work in two locations. His drifting from job to job happened at the end of his life when he developed seizures, eventually succumbing to status epilepticus in front of his family. Macmillan concluded that, at worst, Gage was probably guileless and lacked social skills. A hotel guest, basically a stranger, convinced him to travel to Chile and manage a Concord stagecoach, a difficult cognitive-motor task, which he apparently mastered.


[edit] Childhood precursors
Psychopathy is not normally diagnosed in children or adolescents, and some jurisdictions explicitly forbid diagnosing psychopathy and similar personality disorders in minors. Psychopathic tendencies can sometimes be recognized in childhood or early adolescence and, if recognised, are diagnosed as conduct disorder. It must be stressed that not all children diagnosed with conduct disorder grow up to be psychopaths, or even disordered at all, but these childhood signs are found in significantly higher proportions in psychopaths than in the general population.

Children showing strong psychopathic precursors often appear immune to punishment; nothing seems to modify their undesirable behavior. Consequently parents usually give up, and the behavior worsens.[10]

The following childhood indicators are to be interpreted not as to the type of behavior, but as to its relentless and unvarying occurrence. It is not necessary for every single one to exist concurrently, but at least _#_ of them need to be present over a period of years.

A longer-than-usual period of bedwetting past the preschool years, (unless that is due to medical problems that could be corrected)
Cruelty to animals which extends beyond an angry outburst, extending into a coldblooded remoteness in execution and including torture and painful extended death.
Firesetting and other vandalism. Playing with matches as a preschooler is very common and an unfortunate cause of many fatal housefires. What is indicated here is the deliberate setting of intentionally destructive fires with total immunity regarding consequences to the property and lives of others.
Lies where the deceptions extend beyond a child's normal impulse to not be punished. Lies are so extensively utilized that it is truly never possible to know what is lie and what is truth. Lies are not at all necessarily linked to discernable objectives.
Truancy -
Theft -
Aggression to peers - There are all kinds of aggressive abuse, relatively few of them related to the physical. It can include getting others into trouble or a campaign of psychological torment.
Defiance of authority.
For more indicators, (see conduct disorder.

The three indicators, bedwetting, cruelty to animals and firestarting, known as the MacDonald triad, were first described by J.M. MacDonald as indicators of psychopathy[11]. Though the relevance of these indicators to serial murder etiology has since been called into question, they are considered relevant to psychopathy.

The question of whether young children with early indicators of psychopathy respond poorly to intervention compared to conduct disordered children without these traits has only recently been examined in controlled clinical research. The findings from this research are consistent with broader evidence - pointing to poor treatment outcomes. [12]


[edit] See also
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)
Conduct disorder
Oppositional defiant disorder
Antisocial personality disorder
Crime
Serial killer
Narcissistic personality disorder
Sadistic personality disorder
Fictional portrayals of psychopaths
Malignant narcissism

[edit] References
^ Hare, R. D. Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion, Psychiatric Times, February 1996, XIII, Issue 2 Accessed June 26, 2006
^ Hare, Robert D, Psychopaths: New Trends in Research. The Harvard Mental Health Letter, September 1995
^ Washington State Legislature Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Accessed June 26, 2006
^ Statutes and Amendments to the Codes of California 1939, page 1783, ch. 447, enacted June 6, 1939
^ Statutes and Amendments to the Codes of California 1941, page 2462, ch. 884, enacted June 28, 1941.
^ The Mental Health Act (uk) Reforming The Mental Health Act, Part II, High risk patients Accessed June 26, 2006
^ Cleckley, H, 1941 The Mask of Sanity (pdf Download 1.38mb)
^ Sabbatini, Renato M.E. The Psychopath's Brain Accessed June 26, 2006
^ Macmillan, Malcolm, An Odd Kind of Fame: Stories of Phineas Gage, MIT Press, 2000
^ Ramsland, Katherine, The Childhood Psychopath: Bad Seed or Bad Parents?
^ J. M. MacDonald "The Threat to Kill". American Journal of Psychiatry, 125-130, 1963
^ Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2005). The treatment of conduct problems in children with callous-unemotional traits. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(4), 737-741. [1]

[edit] Further reading
Cooke D.J., Michie C. "Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model." Psychological Assessment, 2001, 13(2), 171-188.
Hare, Robert D Without Conscience.
Hare, Robert D with Paul Babiak Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (2006)
Hill, C. D., Neumann, C. S., & Rogers, R. (2004). "Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) in Offenders with Axis I Disorders." Psychological Assessment, 16, 90-95.
Neumann, C. N., Vitacco, M. J., Hare, R .D., & Wupperman, P. (in press). "Deconstructing the 'Reconstruction' of Psychopathy: A Comment on Cooke, Michie, Hart, & Clark." Journal of Personality Disorders.
Patrick, Christopher J. (2006) Handbook of Psychopathy.
Michael H. Thimble, F.R.C.P., F.R.C. Psych. Psychopathology of Frontal Lobe Syndromes.

[edit] External links
Look up Psychopathy in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.Conner, Michael G, Psy.D Are You Involved With A Psychopath?
Malatesti, L, Psychopathy in Psychiatry and Philosophy: An Annotated Bibliography
O'Connor, T, Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy and Psychopathy
RCMP Gazette Vol. 66, Issue 3 2004, The psychopathic offender
Understanding The Psychopath: (Key Definitions & Research)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy"
Category: Personality disorders

[John White]

TWSU3, if you seriously, even for a moment, believe Fallious is a psychopath, then you are in the grip of paranoia and should urgently seek help

If you dont believe that, why the hell are you posting it?

Either way, its adding new dimensions to "Stupid" and you need to either sort yourself out or shut up

Andrew, can't you do anything with him? He's your friend

[adam1]

Well said John, well said Fallious. Also, well done Mr. No-Planes-Wescam- guy, altho it has to be said that from my neutral standpoint, you are taking one helluva beating from Fallious as it stands. Could you reply to Fallious' posts? I await your response with anticipation.
Meanwhile, TWSU3 has gotten up my nose several times, and that's hard to do. Either he(she) is drunk, stoned, or hasn't been careful enough, and owes Fallious and the rest of us an apology.
Fallious, don't bother responding to TWSU3's nonsense.

[Fallious]

This was the nail in the coffin for me. When the person who shouts longest and loudest about 'No Plane' theory on these forums has nothing but fruit cake recipies and personal attacks left, well, case closed.

I've sent this pm to all moderators...

----------------------------

RE: THETRUTHWILLSETU3 disrupting forums.

Here are links to six posts TTWSU3 has made in the last three days with absolutely no relation to 9/11 truth.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5506
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=38484&highlight=#384 84
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=38365&highlight=#383 65
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=38364&highlight=#383 64
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=38343&highlight=#383 43
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=38340&highlight=#383 40

6 posts in three topics out of the last 15 posts he's made. At a stretch I could see this might be acceptable if his other posts were worthwhile or addressed anything related to the topic at hand, but they rarely do. He is literally spamming his, and other peoples threads with unsolicited and unrelated links and articles.

I know one moderator is friendly with THETRUTHWILLSETU3 and I hope this doesn't mean he is receiving preferential treatment. The level of disruption he is causing has gone beyond whatever joke may have initially spawned it.

I don't care what you do with him, i've no interest in him being banned, I only want him to follow the same rules of discourse as everyone else on the forum.

------------------------------------------------

If anyone feels equally compelled to have TTWSU3 pulled up on his recent behaviour then feel free to C+P their own pm's. The moderator list is found in the moderator group, by hitting the "usergroups" link from the forum menu.

[Stefan]

Firstly I'd say TRUTH is merley being creative about expressing his opinion that people are being fruitcakes or talking b0ll0cks. As long as he's not taking too much of the screen up I dont' think you can come down on him and not the people here who similarly take up a post on a thread to insult someone else in a more pedestrian manner- which doesn't seem uncommon here.

Secondly- the No Planes thing. Well I don't think it's helpful to talk about this sort of stuff in public- it is like trying to make a baby run a marathon before they can walk. But I also don't think it's an argument without merit.

My biggest problem with it is the amount of eye witnesess, particuarly the recent video from a couples home (Ok I know they didn't catch the plane- but if they were "plants" of some kind- why cry out "That was a military plane!"- not the best rouse in the world really is it).

This makes the idea of a hologram the only tennable concept of this whole group of thought- and that just sounds so far out and science fiction it's kind of impossible to talk to it about people who still consider that planes flying into the tops of skyscapers should naturally cause their complete and utter vertical disintegration.

The physics side of it intrigues me though. As does the image:



It's kind of hard to deney that is NOT normal, natural or explainable in any conventional way.

I think the most intriging of all was the video of the nose of the plane (or whatever we are talking about here) coming through the side of the building. To say aluminium could bust through concrete and steel is one matter- but to carry on straight through and still be perfectly "nose" shaped on it's exit- and THEN explode. It certainly seems only a missile could do that.

BUT... but, but, but... what is the explanation for the eye witnessess?

[Fallious]

This single film seems to be the very root of the NPT problem. It instantly makes most people (me included) look twice, or more times and when accompanied by an article, or link which claims to explain the anomaly it's a great device to get eyeballs on the theory.

People feel that photographic evidence of this magnitude requires a damn good explanation. They imagine the plane can't exist, yet, as is the case with you, the majority of people understand that there would be far more evidence if this were the case. So a theory is constructed to explain an image, a theory based on yet more blurry images.

So anyway, I'm a game developer, I work with 2D and 3D art and animation. I also spent a couple of years playing with video and compositing computer and live action. The image you posted doesn't bother me, here's why:

Interestingly each of these points is probably enough to account for the anomalies in the image and film, but they also have a cumulative effect on the overall detail available.

1. Ok first up, resolution. I don't know how high the original film might be but in youtube, or here it's low.. very low. At a guess i'd say perhaps every meter is a pixel.
- Note how the planes tail is almost invisible against the tower.
- The engines are represented by perhaps four pixels, blurred to look far higher.
- Where are the beams on the tower? It should be black and white striped! We can't see them because the normal between the two areas is taken and it comes out a solid grey.

2. Frame rate + compression. I'd guess the cameras shutter speed was perhaps 30 FPS.. this could be easily confirmed by looking at the source footage. So the plane is moving 500 MPH, at 30 FPS, that's one frame for roughly 5 meters! The video's I've seen on youtube run at less than 20 FPS.
- When video is compressed, it's just like JPG compression, this means colour values are normalised over a number of pixels.
- In many compression methods pixels are also encoded dependent upon their 'difference' from the same pixel in the previous frame. Small differences mean even smaller or no change in the pixel data in the next frame.

3. Motion blur. Remember the camera is moving pretty wildly in this video, pixels probably never share the same actual spot on the tower in each frame, this will add to the greying out of any detail and remember that difference compression method?

So how about a little experiment, I wonder, can you make out the tops of the planes engines? Or for that matter, any part of the plane which isn't highlighted by bright reflections or dark shadows? Just as the NPT's correctly identify these parts of the plane 'disappear', however it's more accurate to say that they 'normalise'. Because they have a similar colour to the towers, just like the individual beams of the towers façade, the very few pixels representing these areas are normalised to the grey mass of the towers.

Is it then reasonable to expect, that considering the information I've provided, its actually only natural to expect a normalisation of the holes left by the plane wings? Being that the area where we are expecting to see a hole is roughly the size of an engine, its likely four pixels of data, each one influenced by five grey pixels around it, blurring, and possibly linear compression.

[Thermate]

Get the original footage, if that image looks the same (it won't) then you have a theory. Youtube/Googlevideo are too low-res to make judgements on things like this.

Just as with the pod/flash/missile theory, it looks very much like they are there (and that something is dropping off the underside of the plane just before impact) but until you see the original video you can't be totally sure. Wish all the original footage for 911 was downloadable from some place.

Apparently the Loose Change crew are getting the original video stock for 'Loose Change 3: The Movie' should be interesting...

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-696990552796252094&hl=en

[telecasterisation]

Koheleth said;

[sandhutbabe]

[physicist]