Well, for a start I don't see what the first bit is getting at at all. Sorry. It seems to be suggesting smoke shouldn't move or something.
The other bit seems to totally not anticipate the obvious objection that maybe, just maybe the sequence was filmed on a hand held camera by someone who wasn't standing still. That guy was a nob though.
This is beyond all the voluminous unanswered questions and far-fetched suppositions the central hypothesis entails.
However, I do continue to admire Fred's video editing skills. And he makes good choices regarding background music and paces his shorts well. I think he's a promising film maker _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Well, for a start I don't see what the first bit is getting at at all. Sorry. It seems to be suggesting smoke shouldn't move or something.
The other bit seems to totally not anticipate the obvious objection that maybe, just maybe the sequence was filmed on a hand held camera by someone who wasn't standing still. That guy was a nob though.
This is beyond all the voluminous unanswered questions and far-fetched suppositions the central hypothesis entails.
However, I do continue to admire Fred's video editing skills. And he makes good choices regarding background music and paces his shorts well. I think he's a promising film maker
Unfortunately I have had to ban schizo for his rudeness, but perhaps someone else (or schizo's reincarnation) can answer?
What do we know about this film clip?
I agree on first impressions it does look like blue screen fake film.
Any details of who he is, who filmed it, who broadcast it, is the clip available in context ie as part of a longer broadcast?
I agree Ian, it would be useful to know the source of the interview footage. That looks blatantly blue screen and its not the camera movement that does it for me. It's simply the 'unreal' look to it. The contrast between the bloke and the background seems too irregular.
However, something tells me there won't be too much worthwhile discussion about it.. _________________ 'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:47 am Post subject:
sidlittle wrote:
However, something tells me there won't be too much worthwhile discussion about it..
No there won't be - not least from the "researchers" - because when it comes to 'film making' Fred only seems to understand how to copy, paste and edit files in video editing programes.
Being an untrained amateur it's quite understandable that optics, lenses and perspective are not an area Fred wants to dwell on. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
If you're going to be like that, then I shall take back all the nice things I said about your film making skills .
I am, however, still awaiting a response regarding your previous assertion about the use of airborne lasers:
1/The airports used.
2/The model used that has the ability to cause the damage you claim it could. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking it is beyond the capabilities of an airborne anti-missile laser to cut massive holes in buildings. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
And yes, you're wrong. It is perfectly capable of cutting holes into buildings (which is not to say with 100% certainty that's what made the holes in the building, but there's no technical reason it couldn't have.)
Could you evidence that? From doing a bit of a trawl, the mechanisms described for the system which isn't yet formally online don't seem capable of slicing holes in buildings. E.g.
Quote:
The pointing and tracking system tracks the missile and provides launch and predicted impact locations. The turret at the nose of the aircraft swivels towards the target and a 1.5 metre telescope mirror system inside the nose focuses the laser beam onto the missile. The laser beam is locked onto the missile, which is destroyed near its launch area within seconds of lock-on. Where the missile carries liquid fuel, the laser can heat a spot on the missile's fuel tank, causing an increase in internal pressure resulting in catastrophic failure. Alternatively, the missile is heated in an arc around its circumference and crumples under atmospheric drag force or its own G-force
- this is very different to slicing massive gouges in steel and concrete. I am therefore assuming you have found information that details rather more hardcore applications of this kind of technology. Frankly, Fred, on this specific issue I am particularly keen for you to be dead wrong as I find the concept of lasers that could slice up buildings unnerving to say the least. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
It's up to you. If you don't want to convince people of your beliefs, that puts no crimp on my day whatsoever.
PRESENTER - "Tonight on the ABC network, we're featuring the extraordinary claims of one Fred. His internet crusade has been to convince the world that no planes, that's right - no planes were used on 911. Fred believes an airborne laser weapon may have been used to cause damage to the twin towers. So Fred, we know there are anti-missile lasers in operation, but what kind of technology are you suggesting actually caused this scale of damage? More than those anti-missile lasers surely?"
FRED - "Do your own research"
PRESENTER - "ooookaaay, so but surely this is new technology unlike anything the public are privy to now, let alone in 2001. I mean we all know there's stuff being developed we're not allowed to see, but what do you think they actually had back in 2001 and how could it cause that kind of damage? It's something our viewers will take some convincing of."
FRED - "Let's see...
Rock
Bow and arrow
Sword
Gun
Bomb
Nuclear Bomb
Hydrogen Bomb
but the new stuff can't destroy a building... hmmm"
PRESENTER - "Ok Fred, that's all we've got time for - the viewers will have to make their own minds up from here...' _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject:
Fred wrote:
Let's see...
Rock
Bow and arrow
Sword
Gun
Bomb
Nuclear Bomb
Hydrogen Bomb
but the new stuff can't destroy a building... hmmm
I really didn't think the relevance of your opinions could sink any lower with me Fred, but darn me you just achieved it.
Congratulations. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
By the way, you missed the pike, the crossbow and the horse - very important they were. And of course the spear. The pike is particularly interesting as it became redundant during the ascent of Rome (and its tactically versatile legions), but it has been convincingly argued that this was primarily due to poor training and a lack of tactical nous regarding the use of additional light screening troops and cavalry which made the phalanx based armies of Alexander the Great so formidable. We see a return of the pike as a weapon of choice in the late middle ages, using tactics not unlike those of the ancients. Then of course, round then there was also the halberd (and not forgetting the english billhook) which had fine armour piercing and crushing capabilities and thus was more effective against heavily armoured knights than the sword. However, prior to the ascent of gunpowder, it is difficult to argue that military history is strictly linear (the Byzantine empire implemented flame throwers, the legendary 'Greek Fire', the exact ingredients of which were such a closely guarded secret we don't know exactly what it was made up (it was certainly oil mixed with something to give it an adhesive quality) and how it was delivered (beyond some kind of pump being used) today - that technology vanished for a good few years). The history of humans doing horrible things to one another is a fascinating area. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Ah, so it can destroy a building because its a LA-SAR
And not becuase its a Lasar pointer for guided missiles
laser
Pedantry is the reserve of tiny minds
When you pass your english o grade you are welcome to debate with adults, otherwise STFU. Just because your mentor david icke isn't promoting the fake planes, though he might when he realises enough people have woken up to it and there could be money to be made from it, you feel the need to incessantly troll people uncovering new information in this field like your life depends on it. You are a joke now never mind when it becomes accepted knowledge those videos are fraudulent, much like your gandalf persona. Get a job. _________________
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject:
WhoKilledBambi? wrote:
You are a joke now never mind when it becomes accepted knowledge those videos are fraudulent, much like your gandalf persona. Get a job.
It's funny, I noticed on your website a while back the comment 'The perps lose, we win. Game over'. http://www.911researchers.com/blog/12
, and have been waiting for a report about arrests with baited breath ever since.
Silly me, it was just more pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking from the "researchers".
Btw, your 'missile' theory is b*ll*cks too.
Missile technology is currently about smaller, radar avoiding missiles.
The era of the small fighter sized (note: not airliner sized) missile ended some time ago. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
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
.
