I'm no "Troll" - I'm willing to consider your theo

[Stefan]

But first I have some questions:

1) Are there any real videos of the events of 11/09/2001 in New York at all? And how do you decide which are real and which are fake?

From what I can see the timeline of the fakery position goes something like this:

• Low quality, compressed YouTube videos of VCR recorded TV footage makes it appear as though parts of the plane "disappear" when they pass over parts of the background which are a similar colour. As both elements (the back ground and the plane) have been compressed into a flat colour - it is at points very difficult to tell them apart and the compression merges them. For example - the "anomaly" in most shots is where the parts of the plane (which in crisp photos appear as dark grey) pass over the face of the south tower the plane hits (which also appears as a dark grey) - both are represented by a flat grey in the video - so they merge. An over excited thought criminal once demanded with glee I retract my claim - by showing me a frame where the planes wing in bright sunlight (on the compressed video appearing as a flat white) passed over cloud (on the compressed video also appearing as a flat white) also appeared to disappear. Unsurprisingly I did not retract the claim. This evidence was mostly poured over by people who were, at the time, claiming with zeal that the plane was in fact a missile "cloaked" by a "hologram". This position was later dropped by 99% of the NPT/NBB theory supporters for the simple reason it was *. There is no way to produce a hologram unless it is surrounded by light sources - the whole idea is untennable. After a fruitless spell of claiming every cluster of pixels is a cloaked "Light Orb" you game up and moved on...

• While the fact that the “anomalies” were nothing more than results of compression was not accepted, the “hologram” solution (which was wielded as a “TRUTH!” the “SHILLS” wanted to suppress was quickly dropped through sheer embarrassment, a new solution was brought out – the plane was still not real – but this time there was no Boeing to see at all, to the naked eye, it was TV fakery! Obviously it was possible for a plane to be super imposed onto existing footage of New York – so it didn’t have the embarrassing draw back of being technologically impossible like the hologram solution – in fact most people would accept that planes could easily be super imposed onto film wouldn’t they. Of course they would – but few accepted that there was any evidence for it being the case – the classic “EVIDANCE!” (sorry – evidence) which “SHILLS” would not accept suggested a hologram was equally weak when it came to Fakery – the “disappearing wings” and so on still had a very simple explanation as a glitch of video compression. Beyond this there was now a much bigger problem they had invented for themselves; while with the unworkable hologram nonsense there was an explanation for how the thousands of people in Manhattan had been fooled, now a scenario had to be created where absolutely anyone who said they saw, photographed, or videoed a plane must be lying, and the new “PLOT” they had devised involved not a single freelance reporter or tourist or local videoing or photographing the event. But there was too much investment in the idea that there was no big Boeing involved from those who had screamed “DISINFO AGENT” at those who refused to accept holograms, and even though they had realised the idea was a pile of steaming bs by now, they weren’t about to back down. MORE EVIDANCE (sorry, evidence) was needed

• Now this is where it all got a bit silly. By now the NBBT (who had split down the middle now between those who said some small plane or missile hit disguised on TV as a plane, and those who were genuine NPT – it was a bomb inside the building!) had grown bored of people continually showing how the effects they had noticed on the footage of planes was not evidence (sorry, evidence) of anything, they started to look at other parts of the videos – they started seeing fakery everywhere – any trick of perspective, any glitch in compression, any camera angle they could not work out where it had been filmed was EVIDANCE (sorry, evidence) of fakery.

But lads – FAKERY OF WHAT?

This is why you are treated with such incredulity when you come up with this stuff – you have actually moved from the evidence-less (but at least still within the bounds of reality) claim that a plane was superimposed onto footage of the attack on the towers – either over a missile or small plane or over thin air timed with a bomb blast – to the claim that EVERYTHING was faked – the WTC was faked – the bridge was faked – the buildings around were faked – the trees were faked – NEW YORK WAS FAKED GODDAMMIT AND IF YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE A SHILL!

Are you picking up where my problem with this all is at all yet?

Well let me juxtapose these claims with the “other side” of the sterling compressed video research you guys do – the side where EVERYTHING IS REAL!

You see a bird on a video – IT’S A CLOAKED “UFO!”
You see a smudge on a video – IT’S A MYSTERIOUS ORB!
You see a helicopter – IT’S A MISSILE!

Everything you don’t want to be there is faked, everything you want to see is there – just cloaked as normal objects or clusters of pixels in your youtube videos.

So this is my FIRST question – what is real and what is fake in the footage of 9/11?

If you can answer this, then we can move onto other areas.

I'm wide open lads, convince me.

[chek]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[Stefan]

marky,
I don't know what you're suggesting - I am no closer to accepting any variant of NPT than I have ever been.

The accusation of "Troll" has come because we've all been worn down and have added insulting these guys to debating them - giving them a handy "out" and an excuse to avoid questions.

So I'm bringing it back to simple polite questions and observations - if they really beleive their theories they can answer these questions.

[John White]

Shockingly, i'm wide open to being convinced too

When I first heard of theories of TV Fakery, I assumed that anyone claiming that would have to have done at least a credible groundwork before making such a claim, and there must be something in it

So I started to watch and read the case... and kept watching... and watching... giving it all a chance... trying to see the case being made and the best evidence for it...

Problem is, I arrived at the conclusion "WTF?! This is tissue thin bullsh*t!" and have been stuck there ever since

TV Fakery? Black Op weapons?

The possibility is there...

To date, the evidence isnt

And damn anyone who damns me for saying so: my conscience demands no less

[chek]

[Dogsmilk]

[John White]

It's the killtown's and webfairy's of this world I've got the greatest contempt for. I find their vile conpiracism revisionism ethically repugnant: you know, swear blind its "pods on planes" one year, then "there are no planes" the next, whilst claiming to have "always known so" and never bothering to repudiate their previous ramblings, all the while sucking the unprepared in...

People like Prole I feel genuinely sorry for. I was talking to him by pm for a while before he got infected with the NPT meme, swapped a few links with him and stuff. A nice guy, but definately vunerable, certainly struggling to cope with the whole "9/11 reality shift"... and now he's been turned to the path of the "reasearcher", thats hard to see becuase all he expresses is his imbalances now.

I loathe abuse in any form, and the NPT pushers are most certainly abusing and using vunerable people to work against their own best interests

So scum like that certainly get no quarter spared from me

[marky 54]

[chek]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you Marky.

It's not Youtube that is the whole problem - it's the electronic imaging process from start to finish. Even what you refer to as clean first generation video is a digitised image in m2v format.

I wrote a long while ago in some thread about how fully storing the amount of data that an average optical 35mm cine camera captures would work out to approx 200 x 4.7 GB DVD's per 90 minutes. All digital video is therefore compressed - it's how the moving image capture process is designed to work - in a way that current generation microprocessors can handle.

There are specialised digital cameras for capturing hi-speed events, but those aren't what your news teams and tourists use.

The bottom line is that even digital images straight from the toppermost class camera cannot be likened or examined as could be done with optical film, which is the basic mistake the researchers will not stop making.

Those running these things, of course know that already.

[marky 54]

[truthseeker john]

[marky 54]

exactly so youtube for a start is out the window for proving anything to do with faking, and certainly cannot not be or even considered to be scientific.

9/10 its just simple prespective, the rest of the time its due to poor quality/loss of quality.

for example the naudet 'no plane clip' of the poor quality object slamming into the tower.

[Stefan]

Sorry Marky, I misread your meaning.

I agree - some excellent examples of this are when the first youtube video of Calum's talk in London was posted here, he appeared to disappear for a few seconds and you could see the curtain behind him - to a TV Fakery proponent this would be *proof* the talk never happened - actually just a glitch of compression -

I remember one of us (I think Chek) posting a you tube video of a radio controlled plane which disappeared for some frames. As well.

Well Killtown, bollock - where are you answers?

This is your chance to outline your position and win over the doubters -

What was faked of the 9/11 footage and what was real?

[gruts]

good question - I thought I'd bump this one as there's still no reply....

[alwun]

Hi Stefan,

Don't forget - that the fact of proving no planes is at this time not fully possible - I believe time will tell.(proving a negative)
But also - is the fact of aeroplane theory sound?

To my mind and vision, admittedly limited, the video and audio records presented as proof of the plane theory do not stand up to close scrutiny, never mind analysis. They form the main plank in that theory, of planes well piloted by rogue islamists who, we know, could barely control a cessna, hitting their needle in a haystack targets with pinpoint precision. They have been fixed in the minds of millions who believe in them yet.
Look closely how vehement are they who attack the npt heretics.
Am I the only one who sees a takeover of these threads?

cheers Al..

[catfish]

[Mark Gobell]

Does anyone think that any form of "video fakery" or "audio fakery" has been employed in, for example, the littany of OBL premieres ?

[chek]

[chek]

[catfish]

[alwun]

Chek,
you must be a little tired, perhaps. You quote Mark Gobell, then there follows what you offer as an answer to a simple question.
Your reply is a masterclass in obfuscatory non-sequiteurs,

Here it is -

[chek]

[alwun]

Chek, sorry to rabbit on but -
I see, at last that you're right all along. All of the above is sadly true. I only have time to address the last two for the moment.
I especially liked this one

[chek]

[Mark Gobell]

Entirely possible will do. For now.

[alwun]

I'm at a loss. For the moment.

[catfish]

[chek]