[quote="Fred"]It's a quiet unmanned helicopter that can be used for surveillance and military missions. They're made in Canada by Bombardier. You don't even need to be a pilot to fly one. They're just the thing for secret missions like making sure everything is in place to blow up a building.
We now have the prospect of unmanned pilotless helicopters thrown into the mix?!
What stops them being videoed by anyone with a camera?
The object in the clips does not resemble the helicopter one bit - are we therefore to believe they would be 'cloaked' to appear like large bits of paper?
What would happen if one failed mechanically and landed/crashed in the street?
Given the countless vantage points that the locality offered, why would such unmanned helicopters be needed, adding enormously to the prospect of being discovered?
-------
On the day, there would have been a huge range of video recording equipment out in the field, everything from broadcast quality professionally operated tripod mounted cameras to tourists with hand held jobs worth a couple of hundred dollars. These would have spread over a wide range of locations, out of apartment windows, in streets, parks, in helicopters, cars, relatively close and somewhat distant. So with this in mind, where is the clear footage of all the strange aerial objects, why did no-one see them on the day and video them clearly?
I have a number of video cameras, a range of still cameras from 35mm through to monorail 4x5, plus some 5 digital still cameras. I know what constitutes clarity and know the limitations of the equipment, so have to ask that given we are exposed to this poor quality rubbish on Youtube, why is the original footage not aired on terrestrial televsion on one of the cable channels if it exists? Why have we only ever seen or had access to the poorest quality footage available?
I can only conclude that either;
1) The objects are instantly identifiable as soon as you look at the originals (assuming they exist), and it is only once they get uploaded that they develop ambiguous characteristics.
2) The footage is fake.
Some months ago, there reached a point where it became increasingly obvious that debating any footage published on the internet was valueless due to the fact that anyone with minimal experience in image manipulation could slap together a video that challenged sensibility. The exiting nosecone being a case in point, for if planes were used, then it is impossible for the front section of a plane to pass unscathed through either of the towers and out the other side - therefore it was faked, no question. Yet we still see it raised even now.
In my opinion, video footage, or rather, any clip of 9/11 that is published via outlets such as Youtube should be discounted as evidence of anything unless the original is available via some other mechanism.
ALL video footage, CNN logo bearing or whatever else, viewed via Youtube cannot be held up as any type of evidence for anything whatsoever.
If there were hovering covert surveillance vehicles in the sky on 9/11 there is no way that their operators could guarantee that there wasn't a camera crew right underneath with a really high powered top quality lenses trained on them - exposing them to the world.
Some months ago, there reached a point where it became increasingly obvious that debating any footage published on the internet was valueless due to the fact that anyone with minimal experience in image manipulation could slap together a video that challenged sensibility. The exiting nosecone being a case in point, for if planes were used, then it is impossible for the front section of a plane to pass unscathed through either of the towers and out the other side - therefore it was faked, no question. Yet we still see it raised even now..
Hang on tele, are you saying the 'nose-out' footage is fake because although it appears to be a nose cone, there were definitely planes used and therefore the footage is fake?
or in other words, all footage, present now and to come in the future, that may hint at no planes must also be false because planes were definitely used to attack the wtc? _________________ 'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde
What's your conventional explanation for the "shadow" cast TOWARD the sun (LEFTward of the object itself in this SOUTH-facing MORNING footage)
http://webfairy.org/slideshow/911whatzit
in Frames 143-154, onto the side of the white truck,
and
the "shadow" comprised of WHITE light, cast in the same direction, onto the second building from the left, in Frames 168-188?
Toggle back and forth between consecutive frames to see that the projections move in perfect sync with the object, like conventional shadows, if only they were also cast away from the sun, and not comprised of white light.
What's your conventional explanation for the "shadow" cast TOWARD the sun (LEFTward of the object itself in this SOUTH-facing MORNING footage)
http://webfairy.org/slideshow/911whatzit
in Frames 143-154, onto the side of the white truck,
and
the "shadow" comprised of WHITE light, cast in the same direction, onto the second building from the left, in Frames 168-188?
Ray
My explanation?
There is only one possible explanation for there being no sunlight on the object (until it moves when the sunlight then hits it);
We have no idea how big the object is, hence we cannot begin to judge its height off the ground. To the left of the camera, out of shot is a building, a tall one, or rather, one tall enough to block the light falling on the object. It simply starts off in the building's shadow, then moves out of it.
As for 'count the spheres entering the right edge' - 'they' don't look anything like spheres, more like broken cloud and/or lens flare.
Hang on tele, are you saying the 'nose-out' footage is fake because although it appears to be a nose cone, there were definitely planes used and therefore the footage is fake?
or in other words, all footage, present now and to come in the future, that may hint at no planes must also be false because planes were definitely used to attack the wtc?
I was very clear about what I said and that wasn't that the 'nose-out' footage was faked because planes were definitely used.
Instead, I said that regardless of the how or what of 911, the intact front section of an aircraft could not pass through such a structure without sustaining highly destructive damage and then out the other side as if nothing had happened.
This is unquestionably faked footage not because planes were or weren't used, simply because it is not physically possible and nothing more. Anyone constructing such footage would have done so with their tongue very firmly in their cheek. I view it as a fun cartoon, a pastiche of the day designed to raise a smile and nothing more.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 9:08 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
sidlittle wrote:
Hang on tele, are you saying the 'nose-out' footage is fake because although it appears to be a nose cone, there were definitely planes used and therefore the footage is fake?
or in other words, all footage, present now and to come in the future, that may hint at no planes must also be false because planes were definitely used to attack the wtc?
I was very clear about what I said and that wasn't that the 'nose-out' footage was faked because planes were definitely used.
Instead, I said that regardless of the how or what of 911, the intact front section of an aircraft could not pass through such a structure without sustaining highly destructive damage and then out the other side as if nothing had happened.
This is unquestionably faked footage not because planes were or weren't used, simply because it is not physically possible and nothing more. Anyone constructing such footage would have done so with their tongue very firmly in their cheek. I view it as a fun cartoon, a pastiche of the day designed to raise a smile and nothing more.
I'd point out that just becuase something is called a nose cone doesnt mean it IS a nose cone:
IMO its the left hand engine, passing through the open space and exciting the towers ahead of the rest of the plane because its been sheared away and still has its own momentum (on account of being a jet engine). The right hand engine does'nt exit becuase it hits the core columns
Therefore, balance of probability is that the footage is tragically misunderstood, and nothing impedes it being considered genuine _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
I'd point out that just becuase something is called a nose cone doesnt mean it IS a nose cone:
IMO its the left hand engine, passing through the open space and exciting the towers ahead of the rest of the plane because its been sheared away and still has its own momentum (on account of being a jet engine). The right hand engine does'nt exit becuase it hits the core columns
Therefore, balance of probability is that the footage is tragically misunderstood, and nothing impedes it being considered genuine
Hi John, I refer to the 'nose out' footage because it looks like a nosecone and not an engine. I am at a loss to interpret it being an engine, not solely because it doesn't look like one, but because the dimensions of the object are way too large to be considered 'engine-like'.
Then take into account that if it was an engine, why did it simply stop dead and not clearly continue out from the building - witnessed here;
However, whatever you conclude from the video above, the following image cannot be denied.
You consider it an engine. Compare the still of the emerging 'cone/engine' to the engine found in the street. Let's suppose that with housing and artistic licence the engine is in fact twice that size, three times if you like. Apply that to the image of the emerging 'cone/engine' and the person standing next to the engine is still over twenty feet tall.
This is a video used to make the "nose cone" case, the classic "FOX" view: look at the right engine as it comes in, consider, could it be an engine? Also note that the object" further disintergrates as it falls away from the building, and that the tragectory of the falling debris is an exact match for debris found in NYC streets
The vid you quoted is, how can I put this, a webfairy video... could it be that the video has simply been stepped back a few frames to create an appearance of a "disappearing" nosecone? It ends abrupdtly and never shows a full path for the emerging debris. Rosalie Grable would have to produce the source of the footage so it could be verified: if it could, TV fakery proved! no problem!
I wonder why she doesnt? _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
This is a video used to make the "nose cone" case, the classic "FOX" view: look at the right engine as it comes in, consider, could it be an engine? Also note that the object" further disintergrates as it falls away from the building, and that the tragectory of the falling debris is an exact match for debris found in NYC streets
John, the debris completely disintegrates. Anybody can see that from the very first slow-mo clip in the vid above. So how can it be the very same engine that lands on the streets of new york and rolls under some scaffolding?
cheers _________________ 'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde
The complete 'nose/engine' makes its way through the interior of the building, completely avoiding disintegration by firstly passing through the first outer wall, then dodging interior columns, stairwells, lift shafts and assorted coffee makers, to emerge unscathed out the other side as a nice big rounded bulgy thing.
As it pops out, the exploding fuel catches up, that somehow arrests the enormous forward momentum of this object and instead of continuing on its merry way as is, it is somehow superheated in less than a second to the point it is 'vapourised' into a much smaller object!!?? This smaller object then emerges from the fireball and arcs down into the streets below.
The dimensions of the object are far too big to be an engine, the more I watch this, the crazier it appears.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:42 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
The complete 'nose/engine' makes its way through the interior of the building, completely avoiding disintegration by firstly passing through the first outer wall, then dodging interior columns, stairwells, lift shafts and assorted coffee makers, to emerge unscathed out the other side as a nice big rounded bulgy thing.
As it pops out, the exploding fuel catches up, that somehow arrests the enormous forward momentum of this object and instead of continuing on its merry way as is, it is somehow superheated in less than a second to the point it is 'vapourised' into a much smaller object!!?? This smaller object then emerges from the fireball and arcs down into the streets below.
The dimensions of the object are far too big to be an engine, the more I watch this, the crazier it appears.
Left hand engine: no way: right hand engine: no problem. The interior columns, liftshafts etc dont fill the entire of the internal space, and i can't see the water dispensors being a particular impediment. Jet engines are very heavy very solid objects, after all. As far as the break-up is concerned, it is on fire, and the engine contains fuel, so it doesnt seem unreasonable to conclude it partially explodes. Its not the nose of the plane, anyway
So thats my opinion, everyone else can make their own minds up. _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Left hand engine: no way: right hand engine: no problem. The interior columns, liftshafts etc dont fill the entire of the internal space, and i can't see the water dispensors being a particular impediment. Jet engines are very heavy very solid objects, after all. As far as the break-up is concerned, it is on fire, and the engine contains fuel, so it doesnt seem unreasonable to conclude it partially explodes. Its not the nose of the plane, anyway
So thats my opinion, everyone else can make their own minds up.
I have to disagree that the engine was 'on fire' - it was composed entirely of non-flammable material and constructed to withstand enormous forces. If it had exploded, then how is such a complete engine sitting down on the pavement? I just had a quick look at the feasibility of the fuel in the engine exploding and this is exactly the same principle as a car, the engine actually contains very little fuel, only what it is currently using. There is no fuel tank in the engine.
We still seem to be dancing around the considerable size discrepancy issue though. What emerges from the building is pointed and way too large to be an engine.
This leaves only one possibility, IMO the footage is fake.
This is a video used to make the "nose cone" case, the classic "FOX" view: look at the right engine as it comes in, consider, could it be an engine? Also note that the object" further disintergrates as it falls away from the building, and that the tragectory of the falling debris is an exact match for debris found in NYC streets
The vid you quoted is, how can I put this, a webfairy video... could it be that the video has simply been stepped back a few frames to create an appearance of a "disappearing" nosecone? It ends abrupdtly and never shows a full path for the emerging debris. Rosalie Grable would have to produce the source of the footage so it could be verified: if it could, TV fakery proved! no problem!
I wonder why she doesnt?
Stell libelling Rosalee Grable, John? You are gonna spend the rest of your life apologising to people when the real truth comes out.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject:
Well its like this PAT TC SE:
When the truth does come out, I'm sure Rosalee Grable will be able to splice together a video that will convince you its what she says it is. After all, this woman who single handedly was the first to spot "There were no planes" almost right after 9/11 (recent claim, on this site) then followed it up with two and a half years claiming there was a missile pod attached to the plane that was also the plane that was'nt there
Why don't you go ask her about that? You won't get a straight answer. I wish you had the ability to come up with the answer as to why that is
Regardless, I've got no reason to blindly support fantasists, and I don't care what delusions that makes you entertain about me _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
When the truth does come out, I'm sure Rosalee Grable will be able to splice together a video that will convince you its what she says it is. After all, this woman who single handedly was the first to spot "There were no planes" almost right after 9/11 (recent claim, on this site) then followed it up with two and a half years claiming there was a missile pod attached to the plane that was also the plane that was'nt there
Why don't you go ask her about that? You won't get a straight answer. I wish you had the ability to come up with the answer as to why that is
Regardless, I've got no reason to blindly support fantasists, and I don't care what delusions that makes you entertain about me
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject:
schizophrenogenic element wrote:
John White wrote:
Well its like this PAT TC SE:
When the truth does come out, I'm sure Rosalee Grable will be able to splice together a video that will convince you its what she says it is. After all, this woman who single handedly was the first to spot "There were no planes" almost right after 9/11 (recent claim, on this site) then followed it up with two and a half years claiming there was a missile pod attached to the plane that was also the plane that was'nt there
Why don't you go ask her about that? You won't get a straight answer. I wish you had the ability to come up with the answer as to why that is
Regardless, I've got no reason to blindly support fantasists, and I don't care what delusions that makes you entertain about me
You are a prat. Nuff said.
Talk to make-it-up Grable and then come back and tell me that _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
When the truth does come out, I'm sure Rosalee Grable will be able to splice together a video that will convince you its what she says it is. After all, this woman who single handedly was the first to spot "There were no planes" almost right after 9/11 (recent claim, on this site) then followed it up with two and a half years claiming there was a missile pod attached to the plane that was also the plane that was'nt there
Why don't you go ask her about that? You won't get a straight answer. I wish you had the ability to come up with the answer as to why that is
Regardless, I've got no reason to blindly support fantasists, and I don't care what delusions that makes you entertain about me
You are a prat. Nuff said.
Talk to make-it-up Grable and then come back and tell me that
When do you cease to f*** things up here, when are you going? How is your hero Steven E Jones getting on?
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject:
Aww! I just got left a pressie in my pm box:
Quote:
From: schizophrenogenic element
To: John White
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:47 pm
Subject: ...
You are one f***ing horrible c***, you are! One sick motherf***er!
_________________ Free your Self and Free the World
From: schizophrenogenic element
To: John White
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:47 pm
Subject: ...
You are one f***ing horrible c***, you are! One sick motherf***er!
You should be careful what you wish for. You may find me far far worse without the mod collar on
I have been asked to moderate so I doubt you will last long. Any delusional mentions of 'thermate' or 'Steven Elvis Jones' and you will be sent back to 'Illusions' with a stick of WTC dynamite up your ass!
Last edited by schizophrenogenic element on Fri May 11, 2007 5:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
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
