Well that's strange because on a recent posting tests were done with cheap digital equipment and clear images of planes were captured.
Link, please.
Agreed, I would like to see this too.
It is unusual for commercial aircraft to fly at the speed and height just before impact. How was this duplicated?
Couple this with the element of surprise and rendering sharp images is not easy. As everyone keeps saying about the second impact - everyone was apparently looking in the other direction when it happened.
I saw it from a link on this site in the past week - it may have been Gerald Holgrem - anyway they bought a cheap digital camera - it cost under £200 and took very clear pictures of planes - you will have to track it down yerself
I note that no-one has supplied any really sharp footage of subjects that you would assume would be easy to capture with pristine rendering - such as a tower that didn't move (well at least for a while).
I saw it from a link on this site in the past week - it may have been Gerald Holgrem - anyway they bought a cheap digital camera - it cost under £200 and took very clear pictures of planes - you will have to track it down yerself
Why then is there no clear close-up of the exiting 'nosecone' on the second impact?
The reason is very simple - no-one expected a second aircraft, virtually all footage is 'snatched'. To go out with any visual recording device post-event and take 'better' pictures is easy. Doing it on the day would have been altogether different - most cameramen would have been looking at the first tower.
Unless you can DUPLICATE the circumstances with the same type of equipment (broadcast quality cameras are not as portable as some Hi-8 or mini-DV model), then it is not a fair comparison.
Positioning plays an important part too. How many news teams would put the undamaged tower between them and the burning one? Most of the views of the second plane are panned back shots captured from a distance. Others are from street level and the plane flies into the frame from out of shot. This accounts for most of the plane footage being taken by amateurs, the news crews were doing their job by focusing on what was newsworthy and not the untouched tower.
There are very few shots (if any?) of the plane being followed in from a distance, the camera panning with it, because no-one knew it was coming. The views we have are selective enlargements within the frame, not frame-filling close-ups.
Add to this, it was travelling fast for its height. Those who have visited airshows will know how difficult it is to film a fast moving, low-flying aircraft. If the lens is set to any type of magnification, just getting it in the frame is difficult - not to mention the auto/manual focus problems.
I stand by what I have just written - anybody can capture 'better' and 'clearer' images of aircraft post-event. You know what is going to happen - on that morning five years ago, you didn't and the images captured depended on all kinds of variables. _________________ 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
The 300-500mph head wind suppressed ignition due to turbulence/cooling. Once sufficient momentum had dissipated, the explosion was so large that it took some time for the combustion to propagate (from within the tower) through the vapour cloud.
Why then is there no clear close-up of the exiting 'nosecone' on the second impact?
The reason is very simple - no-one expected a second aircraft, virtually all footage is 'snatched'. To go out with any visual recording device post-event and take 'better' pictures is easy. Doing it on the day would have been altogether different - most cameramen would have been looking at the first tower.
Unless you can DUPLICATE the circumstances with the same type of equipment (broadcast quality cameras are not as portable as some Hi-8 or mini-DV model), then it is not a fair comparison.
Positioning plays an important part too. How many news teams would put the undamaged tower between them and the burning one? Most of the views of the second plane are panned back shots captured from a distance. Others are from street level and the plane flies into the frame from out of shot. This accounts for most of the plane footage being taken by amateurs, the news crews were doing their job by focusing on what was newsworthy and not the untouched tower.
There are very few shots (if any?) of the plane being followed in from a distance, the camera panning with it, because no-one knew it was coming. The views we have are selective enlargements within the frame, not frame-filling close-ups.
Add to this, it was travelling fast for its height. Those who have visited airshows will know how difficult it is to film a fast moving, low-flying aircraft. If the lens is set to any type of magnification, just getting it in the frame is difficult - not to mention the auto/manual focus problems.
I stand by what I have just written - anybody can capture 'better' and 'clearer' images of aircraft post-event. You know what is going to happen - on that morning five years ago, you didn't and the images captured depended on all kinds of variables.
You just don't get it Telly
The cameras did not pick up anything because there was nothing other than what was added by trickerY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The cameras did not pick up anything because there was nothing other than what was added by trickerY!...!
Why didn't they add planes at a better quality then? Oh. They would have looked out of place? So the planes we see in the edited footage, look exactly as genuine planes would? Interesting.... _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
The cameras did not pick up anything because there was nothing other than what was added by trickerY
I remember the response to my question about how the live feeds on the day would have shown aircraft when none were there - I was informed that the technicians, camera crews and reporters were bunged back-handers to keep them quiet. This coupled with the ominous ongoing threat to life and limb keeps them in check.
The amateur footage that has emerged all showing aircraft has been doctored.
The few showing no planes are kosher.
If as Prole suggests, our level of covert technology is years ahead of what we know - we have videos of planes with missing wings, unbelievable explosions and points of entry, not to mention the gatehouse footage of The Pentagon impact! Why haven't we perfect video of everything? There would be pristine clear footage of the first three planes, instead we have the animated equivalent of Steamboat Willy.
Just don't get it? Damn straight I don't, the money 9/11 cost to stage, what hinged upon its success and this was the best, the very best that money and technology could concoct?
I know now why it is called The Truth 'Movement'. _________________ 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
Seriously. I don't know where you people learned how to discuss things, but I always thought it went something like this:
Person 1 Makes a point backed up with some supporting evidence.
Person 2 Examines the point in respect to the evidence. This usually involves testing the validity of the evidence.
Person 1 Notes the challenges to the point or validity of evidence and does one of three things:
- Refines their point and evidence so person 2 can't raise the same flags again.
- Finds no way to further backup their evidence or enhance their point and so admits that it is not particularly valid.
- Challenges person 2's evaluation of their point, by describing why they believe the reaction is incorrect, noting additional relevant evidence in the process.
Repeat.
I pointed out an obvious logic flaw in the NPT image manipulation argument that TTWSU3 put forward, if you have a problem with the point I made then please do examine it, and the evidence presented (a pure logic statement), and refute it if you can. As far as I'm aware it's not a point which has been made before (at least on this forum) so I think it warrants some attention by an NPT supporter.
You seem very eager to assume someone is attacking you or your theory. Discussion of any theory is essential to it's followers gaining more evidence and establishing the strongest evidence it relies upon. Dissenting voices are just as valuable to the process of developing a theory able to stand up to public scrutiny as the researchers who believe in it. You presumably came here to discuss the value of the theory you opine, rather than just print it out for all to see - so get to it. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
The cameras did not pick up anything because there was nothing other than what was added by trickerY
I remember the response to my question about how the live feeds on the day would have shown aircraft when none were there - I was informed that the technicians, camera crews and reporters were bunged back-handers to keep them quiet. This coupled with the ominous ongoing threat to life and limb keeps them in check.
The amateur footage that has emerged all showing aircraft has been doctored.
The few showing no planes are kosher.
If as Prole suggests, our level of covert technology is years ahead of what we know - we have videos of planes with missing wings, unbelievable explosions and points of entry, not to mention the gatehouse footage of The Pentagon impact! Why haven't we perfect video of everything? There would be pristine clear footage of the first three planes, instead we have the animated equivalent of Steamboat Willy.
Just don't get it? Damn straight I don't, the money 9/11 cost to stage, what hinged upon its success and this was the best, the very best that money and technology could concoct?
I know now why it is called The Truth 'Movement'.
They were probably smart enough to do it deliberately - just as some of the film crew that filmed the faked apollo missions left some subtle discrepancies that would be picked up at a later date and give the game away.
The difference here is that so many people have the events of 911 etched into their brains they cannot comprehend no planes. They knew this would happen and would split the truth movement.
But I ask yet again - do a frame by frame analysis on the "butter planes section" of the link below (this is the on the day footage) and no one with a brain will believe they were real planes
As a dedicated vegan, I am forced to avoid animal fats - hence the 'buttery' aviation aspect will have to remain uninspected.
I appreciate you are passionate about NTP - but there is a huge point that goes ignored.
On the day there would have been an indeterminate number of video cameras in play - NYC being a huge touristy type draw. There would have been people of all nationalities, from all over the globe all armed with devices capable of capturing visuals.
Plucking a figure from the ether, let us say that there were 100 video cameras in the hands of Joe Public on the day. The perps of 9/11 would have absolutely no way of knowing what was captured in the way of footage or who captured it. I cannot see any way that this can be disputed.
Given access to the net, news networks (both there and abroad if they simply took their footage home without declaring its existence in America), how is it in any way possible to alter what that footage contained? The person owning the footage would know what it contained - plane/NP - if it was altered prior to airing - they would know the instant it appeared. It makes no sense to expect every single single person to keep quiet if their footage had been altered.
Can you name any single person who claims their video taken on the day has been changed to either show an aircraft or has had it removed?
The variables that amateur footage injects to NPT makes it unworkable - the Japanese tourist who takes his camera home and in a couple of months decides to take it to the local TV company sinks any NP aspect!
The entire thing could not be kept watertight - impossible. _________________ 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: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject:
Fallious wrote:
rodin wrote:
*sigh*
Seriously. I don't know where you people learned how to discuss things, but I always thought it went something like this:
Person 1 Makes a point backed up with some supporting evidence.
Person 2 Examines the point in respect to the evidence. This usually involves testing the validity of the evidence.
Person 1 Notes the challenges to the point or validity of evidence and does one of three things:
- Refines their point and evidence so person 2 can't raise the same flags again.
- Finds no way to further backup their evidence or enhance their point and so admits that it is not particularly valid.
- Challenges person 2's evaluation of their point, by describing why they believe the reaction is incorrect, noting additional relevant evidence in the process.
Repeat.
I pointed out an obvious logic flaw in the NPT image manipulation argument that TTWSU3 put forward, if you have a problem with the point I made then please do examine it, and the evidence presented (a pure logic statement), and refute it if you can. As far as I'm aware it's not a point which has been made before (at least on this forum) so I think it warrants some attention by an NPT supporter.
You seem very eager to assume someone is attacking you or your theory. Discussion of any theory is essential to it's followers gaining more evidence and establishing the strongest evidence it relies upon. Dissenting voices are just as valuable to the process of developing a theory able to stand up to public scrutiny as the researchers who believe in it. You presumably came here to discuss the value of the theory you opine, rather than just print it out for all to see - so get to it.
Although your points are generally valid Fallious, to the best of my knowledge Rodin holds the NO NPT position _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Oh yeah I noticed that, more good reasons to actualy post what you are *sigh*ing about. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
The theories posted to explain the delayed fireball are wrong not just because "I say so" but because they contravene basic physical laws. I have made tried to make this quite clear already.*
[ramble, ramble, more bullsh*t]
Actually, can we go back to the egg jokes? I was getting more out of the thread then!
* That's not to say this isn't rambling bullsh*t, but this is slightly funnier bullsh*t than normal.
Basic physics prove the fireball should take as long as it does.. There. that's productive isn't it? We'll just talk statements at each other, rather than actually researching anything to prove ourselves right or wrong. There was me thinking the point of the forum was to discuss the merits of particular articles and theories.
Ok, now you can get back to what you do best.
yeah - it's all about me folks! Look!
Quote:
Andrew Johnson insists you form your own opinions by reading RealityDown wiki, and the NPT Lies Exposed article.
I didn't say that either. I said "read them if you want" - this isn't the same as me insisting anything.
Happy New Year, Gentle Readers (and posters). _________________ Andrew
As far as the no plane theory. I have just one objective question that has probably already been covered somewhere. I just don't have time to search the entire forum for the answer so I’ll just ask it here.
Has anyone purporting the "no plane" theory ever explained what generated the loud engine noise that was heard by the eyewitnesses and can also be heard in the video captures of the WTC strikes? I’ve heard some people claim that the planes were really holograms but where did the sound come from then? I suppose that you could possibly claim that the sound of the impact was generated by well-timed explosives but how about as the planes were still airborne and flying in towards the buildings roaring through the sky?
Wouldn’t holograms have to be silent in their approach?
Well true but the main problem is that Holograms are transparent!
They are generally made by lazers which cross the beams to form visable patterns in "mid air". Apart from anything else the number of lazers and computing power would be absolutely astronomical.
Even the you would be able to see straight through them.
I undertand the US military were looking at making them usable to possibly fool enemy pilots by projecting a "shadow plane" a certain distance from the real one. However how far they got with it is unknown and I dont think it stretched to projecting an acurate image as such; just a blob the right shape to confuse an enemy pilot for a crucial second or two in the heat of battle.
As you say they are also fairly quiet........ _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
Well true but the main problem is that Holograms are transparent!
They are generally made by lazers which cross the beams to form visable patterns in "mid air". Apart from anything else the number of lazers and computing power would be absolutely astronomical.
Even the you would be able to see straight through them.
I undertand the US military were looking at making them usable to possibly fool enemy pilots by projecting a "shadow plane" a certain distance from the real one. However how far they got with it is unknown and I dont think it stretched to projecting an acurate image as such; just a blob the right shape to confuse an enemy pilot for a crucial second or two in the heat of battle.
As you say they are also fairly quiet........
Do you think a cruise missile could be "modified" to look like a Boeing 7*7?
The 300-500mph head wind suppressed ignition due to turbulence/cooling. Once sufficient momentum had dissipated, the explosion was so large that it took some time for the combustion to propagate (from within the tower) through the vapour cloud.
So high speed winds don't assist combustion? OK - let's assume they don't.
What about the wings impacting the building frontage and fuel lines fracturing? You think the flames immediately blew themselves out on the wing collisions? Completely? No flames AT ALL?
This is pretty weird physics.... compare the bomber crash - again.......... _________________ Andrew
Well true but the main problem is that Holograms are transparent!
Umm - it wasn't necessarily Holograms - yes - hologram projection technology has been SUGGESTED but the evidence for its usage or reality in this type of scenario is far less convincing than the use of broadcast video fakery. Checkout WESCAM again....
Like all past human discovery, I suggest the "no planers" go away and formulate a proper thesis where it can be peer reviewed in the harsh light of reality.
Constantly saying "there were no planes, get it." followed by a YouTube clip is not evidence or in any way convincing.
The onus is totally on the protagonist to prove the point. I think those who have spent the time to show the gaping holes in this cow pat of a yarn should be commended for their tolerance!
Well true but the main problem is that Holograms are transparent!
Umm - it wasn't necessarily Holograms - yes - hologram projection technology has been SUGGESTED but the evidence for its usage or reality in this type of scenario is far less convincing than the use of broadcast video fakery. Checkout WESCAM again....
I still think the evidence is highly suggestive of a missile attack coupled with media fakery.
Can I prove that? No - I can't.
The WESCAM argument (and this appalling little NPT advertisement) has been debunked time and time again. The bottom line is that you were, and still are likely to see any news helicopter fitted with a WESCAM or similarly featured equipment. It's the standard for capturing stabilized aerial footage - that means that the media, rescue services and yes, the military, all have use for it.
Further, the claims by NPT propagandists that WESCAM use somehow infers the superimposition of special effects on a live scene are lies. The WESCAM suite allows for stable image capture and instantaneous transfer to remote receivers with no re-encoding. Just like any other photographic media, at this point the scene may have elements added, but the use of WESCAM is neither required or an indication that this is taking place.
To top it all off, as with any NPT argument, the means to debunk the point is included in the video itself. It's quite clear which images are captured with the stabilized (and highly zoomed!) WESCAM compared with the standard camera, which bobs up and down in it's zoomed shots. They are using two cameras, the WESCAM to capture stable close ups, and the un-stabilized camera to get wider angle shots where the wobble wouldn't be so apparent. Now take a look at the impact footage and tell me which camera you think is being used...
Edited footage maybe, WESCAM as proof – absolutely not. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Even if the plane had penetrated that solid steel exterior wall and steel/concrete floors.......it would have come up against this solid wall (of as yet unknown composition)....that encased the perimeter of the core:
Note that this "wall" is at least 2-3 stories high at this stage in construction.
he core "wall" was basically plasterboard _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Oh dear - they're showing their presence again - people from Critics Corner posting on the same thread as those who supposedly reject the OCT. How interesting. And again Ignatz breaks are posting code. Ban time soon!
All anonymous posters too... "it has been debunked time and time again ay"? Section 3, Paragraph 36 ay?
Right O! _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Oh dear - they're showing their presence again - people from Critics Corner posting on the same thread as those who supposedly reject the OCT. How interesting. And again Ignatz breaks are posting code. Ban time soon!
Perhaps this will clear it up for you. I reject every major point of the OCT. I also reject NPT, bean weapons and any other un-testable theory. That's not to say I won't change my mind if a viable MEANS is presented to me, but I'm yet to see a single piece of evidence for either of these theories... Not to mention that the overarching conventional CT has reams of evidence which contradicts NPT and Beam Weapons.
Quote:
All anonymous posters too... "it has been debunked time and time again ay"? Section 3, Paragraph 36 ay?
Oh i'm sorry, you wanted a reference? How about the product description on the WESCAM website? Don't kid yourself that the movie creators accidentally imagined WESCAM was anything but a stabilized camera and transmission suite - they visited the WESCAM site long enough to get an image from the product description page.
Once again I find myself saying that the creators of this pro NPT movie are liars. They visited the WESCAM site and can't have failed to read the product features lists, yet they still made the movie, knowing full well that what they were saying in it was false. More NPT lies. Is this starting to sink in yet, Andrew? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Oh dear - they're showing their presence again - people from Critics Corner posting on the same thread as those who supposedly reject the OCT. How interesting. And again Ignatz breaks are posting code. Ban time soon!
Perhaps this will clear it up for you. I reject every major point of the OCT. I also reject NPT, bean weapons and any other un-testable theory. That's not to say I won't change my mind if a viable MEANS is presented to me, but I'm yet to see a single piece of evidence for either of these theories... Not to mention that the overarching conventional CT has reams of evidence which contradicts NPT and Beam Weapons.
Quote:
All anonymous posters too... "it has been debunked time and time again ay"? Section 3, Paragraph 36 ay?
Oh i'm sorry, you wanted a reference? How about the product description on the WESCAM website? Don't kid yourself that the movie creators accidentally imagined WESCAM was anything but a stabilized camera and transmission suite - they visited the WESCAM site long enough to get an image from the product description page.
Once again I find myself saying that the creators of this pro NPT movie are liars. They visited the WESCAM site and can't have failed to read the product features lists, yet they still made the movie, knowing full well that what they were saying in it was false. More NPT lies. Is this starting to sink in yet, Andrew?
Nobody is interested in convincing you of anything - go and see a shrink you clearly have a personality disorder - I would describe you as a social misfit.
More NPT lies. Is this starting to sink in yet, Andrew?
It won't, cos he's one of the main NPT advocates on this site. And calling people not stupid enough to register under their real names "anonymous posters" is frankly ridiculous. Posting your real name, address and phone number on the internet doesn't buy you credibility... it buys you something else. _________________ Make love, not money.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: It amazes me what lengths pseudo-science can be taken to
What an interesting thread
It amazes me what lengths pseudo-science can be taken to.
The false assertion that because most of the aircraft's wing is made of aluminium that it could not penetrate the steel columns and would instead 'bounce off' has been made by the most miserable of armchair scientists. Those that skipped the kinetic energy class at 'O' level and are now paying the price.
Love Snowygrouch's post about the challenger tanks - nice one mate - demolish these half-wits with a bit of humour!
Is this pseudo-science the best that those trying to divide the 911 truth movement can do? Almost as bad as the pseudo-science being used to justify genetic engineering of humans in the news today - and of the same miserable spirit. I'm not impressed.
Oh dear - they're showing their presence again - people from Critics Corner posting on the same thread as those who supposedly reject the OCT. How interesting. And again Ignatz breaks are posting code. Ban time soon!
All anonymous posters too... "it has been debunked time and time again ay"? Section 3, Paragraph 36 ay?
Right O!
seatnineb was wondering about the composition of the core 'wall'.
I relayed a fact to him/her. It was made of plasterboard. Very thick as I recall with mesh reinforcement. Built stiff and substantial so that it could be applied tongue+groove fashion and clipped into floor and ceiling rails, with no need for battens etc, but plasterboard nonetheless.
Andrew, this board has the word "Truth" up the top there. I presented a small item of 'truth'. You should be able to deal with that quite easily. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
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
