Thought Criminal Spams again

[thought criminal]

[Fallious]

Best post to date, mate. Really nicely summarised your position.

[thought criminal]

When the truth is revealed, you are going to feel sick to the stomach, John White. Start taking this issue seriously, stop obstructing valid footage of cartoon planes and vanishing buildings. You need to have a break from this moderating/head prefect lark, the power is going to your head.

[thought criminal]

[John White]

Well, I'm mystified as to how you reckon you can acheive anything when you can't co-operate with a community.

[Stefan]

It's not your view TC, it's your inability to discuss it properly or with any conduct of dignity.

Do you notice any of Andy Johnson's threads being deleted? Take a leaf out of his book because there is plenty of room for debate on this site, in the proper areas, if you act respectfully of others.

You repeatedly post the same youtube videos on muliple threads then insult anyone who tries to debate them with you automatically. You antagonistically post under the wrong forum heading over and over again.

Act like a grown up and you'll be treated like one.

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[Stefan]

*slaps forehead*

The buildings TC, were not visable from the camera angle on the first shot.

Do you realise what you are proposing here, even WITHIN an NPT argument, is that rather than super impose a plane onto a shot of new york, they rebuilt New York from the ground up on computer, and forgot to include some buildings????????

JESUS!!!!!!

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[Stefan]

How is that a response to my point?

IS IT your claim that the fact that you can't see buildings in shot 1 means that shot one is entireley computer generated?

Tell me is that what you are suggesting or am I missing something?

Do you ever catch your self suggesting things like this and realise how ridiculous they are?

Even to an NPTer this must sound loopy- why not just super impose a plane onto a shot of new york rather than super impose the whole of New York (and then forget to put a couple of buildings in).

Look when I used to do still lives at school over a period of a few weeks, I eventually worked out a trick of drawing a chalk outline of each of the four legs of the chair I was sitting in with the first session. The reason for this is even a slight change of position and the entire composition disappears. And it is really quite hard to find the exact position again where all the lines meet up in the same way.

All of these "compare the angles of the plane" and "where are the buildings" arguments are based around complete ignorance of the importance of perspective.

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[Stefan]

I have already explained this in another thread:

The areas of the plane which appear to vanish are the same parts of the plane which, on a high res photo, are shown to be in shadow.

I am open minded and gave NPT a proper look at before disgarding it. But when you look at proper photo of the plane before impact and squint, the areas in shadow appear to disappear because the side of the building it is against, also in shadow, is such a similar tone that even with OPTICAL BLURRING you get the same effect. The parts of the plane which are left is INDENTICAL to the odd "one winged missile shape" IDENTICAL.

Now to me, that is not a coincidence; the poor quality digital recording could not get any detail off the plane in shadow and buiding in shadow and presents them both as a flat grey. The same, it is logical to assume, is true of the hole the plane was causing, making all three elements appear the same flat grey and, when paused, make the plane appear to partially disappear and "melt" into the building.

Instead of focusing on a conspiracy theory which can be debunked by squinting your eyes, if you want to try and convince people of this untennable view, why not start with explaining how the hole left in the building could be caused by an explosion from within?

Good Luck.

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[Stefan]

TC,
It doesn't manifest as a spasticated flying mamal, there are just too few pixels being used by the camera to represent a plane.

If it was "TV fakeried" why MAKE it look like a "spasticated flying mamal" when they could just as easily represent a plane?

NEXT!

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[Stefan]

Because the same wing is in shadow, and the same building face is in shadow.

[EmptyBee]

[Stefan]

Here's a new conspiracy theory for you thought criminal:

Where does all the detail on the builing face go?

Why can't we see the aluminium clad steel beams and windows?

Why does it all appear to be a flat grey?

The same flat grey as the wing in shadow is being represented as?

So we can't tell the difference between the two and the wing appears to disappear... oh hold on. I answered my question.


Link

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[Stefan]

I have explained-

Both shots are web compressed digital videos.

In both shots the side of the building the plane is appraoching is represented as a flat grey tone.

Even before the plane reaches the building, the left wing is represented in exactly the same grey- it is featuring the same shadow pattern in EVERY video because that is where it was in shadow (did I even have to explain that?).

Once the two cross each other in our view it is grey-on-grey and it becomes nearly impossible to discern between the two.

Just look at the plane on both videos BEFORE the left wing comes to be against the back ground of the tower.

It is exactly the same colour, and features exactly the same lack of texture and detail yes? Do we agree on this?

So how would you be able to distinguish between the two once they cross over?

As the videos show - you can't - and the wing appears to disappear along with any other part of the plane currently in shadow and therefore the same colour of the building face.

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[thought criminal]

Spam!

[Fallious]

I wonder, could you point out the vertical stripes on the towers for me?



You remember, these ones that aren't visible in the vids because of a lack of contrast.

[Stefan]

TC says:
"You are either a dirty lying shill or a f***ing idiot, which is it?"

Neither.

I have just made a point you have no response to and you are lashing out in anger.

"The wing blatantly disappears revealing the building behind it. I ask any of you to go to your Loose Change 2 dvd and slow it down and see for yourself. We are talking about a physically robust plane, that is not a plane, it is blatantly an illusion. On the Loose Change 2 dvd you will witness not just the wing disappear but the entire side of it becoming transparent."

No it doesn't.

BEFORE the plane crosses over the building it is clearly virtually exactly the same tone of flat grey as the building face is.

So once they cross over you can't properly distinguish between the two elements in show.

I say virtually because if you look closley, the wing is still completley visable in a very slightly different tone of grey to the building. I suppose you call this a "transparency effect".

But how can we say that the wing disappears to reveal the building behind it when both are a flat grey?

If you could discern the details on the building face- such as the aluminium clad steel beams and windows, and these appeared "through" the planes wings, you would have a case. Since this is a "grey-on-grey" comparrison, how are we to say which grey belongs to which object? Let me give you an example:



Now in this exaple I used green for the non shadowed part of the plane because if I cut and paste with invisible background it would count the white as part of the back ground.

First off to note- the plane in each of the three images is a cut and paste- the grey part of the plane IS there on the second two images.

As the plane goes over the rectangle shape, the parts of the plane in grey cannot be seen anymore, because they are the same colour as the rectangle.

This is exactly what we see happening in your videos.

I don't see how I can be any more clear than this.

[ian neal]

JW original post that you are spamming TC is correct. Do not post the same link over and over. If people wish to discuss NPTs there is no problem with that, no one is censoring this topic, just keep that debate on one or two threads.

Secondly please remove fallious's quote from your signature. That is also bad against the moderation policy.

Thanks