Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject:
catfish wrote:
[bump]
It's a puzzler isn't it?
This is the only shot that clearly shows the second plane hitting the building.
Why didn't the major networks show this footage?
You'd need to be more specific about which archive you're talking about Dave - there are several in the relevant time period and you don't specify which. Plus I thought the archive was of the televised footage by definition?
Not being in doubt about the plane strikes myself, I don't have them all obsessively labelled in the way Fred, genghis and Killtown the Klown would.
If it's the piece I'm thinking of though, (the one that Shack claims had the background removed to morph it into the WNBC shot) then it seems to me that the footage isn't a particularly good image for television. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Fox5 New York showed it live but their archive is not available.
Not one of the archived channels show it except for CNN about 2 minutes after the second hit but they cover the actual crash with their banner. This is suspicious no?
This is not a low quality shot. Why don't any of these stations show it?
This is the only shot that clearly shows the second plane hitting the building.
Why didn't the major networks show this footage?
if you're referring to the chopper footage that's used in part 1 of September Clues it looks like it was shown on a local Fox affiliate as there is no Fox logo on display.
any number of shots of the impact were shown on all the networks ad nauseam - so I'm not sure what the mystery is.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject:
catfish wrote:
Not one of the archived channels show it except for CNN about 2 minutes after the second hit but they cover the actual crash with their banner. This is suspicious no?
If the banners moved it would be suspicious.
As they don't, it isn't.
Personally I'm more inclined to wonder why TV viewers put up with having their screen acreage half obscured by banners in the first place.
But then as I don't watch TV what would I know about branding?
I do wonder why Shack in collusion with Wood (Brooklyn) lies so blatantly though in the following extracts;
"CB_Brooklyn Posted: Jul 7 2007, 12:02 AM
Poster
Group: Members
Posts: 67
Member No.: 690
Joined: 26-February 07
Bonez,
I asked "Social Service" about your nosecone pixel analysis debunk and got this response:
The nosecone analysis is - as I feared - not convincing on the .mov video resolution of Sep Clues. The reason is the shadowing of the two noses are different, but if you line them up on photoshop high resolution, the OUTLINE of the noses match precisely - pixel on pixel.
simonshack Posted: Aug 28 2007, 12:54 AM
Poster
Group: Members
Posts: 16
Member No.: 1,354
Joined: 4-July 07
Bone Z,
I think you're truly dedicated to the truth and respect you for it. However,
you've evidently attempted to disprove the Nose in/Nose-out issue without taking the time to read my statements on my livevideo page :
"I initially hesitated to publish this work on the www – if only for the sheer difficulty of displaying , with the available resolution, some of the more subtle details in this study. For instance, the pixel-overlay of the ‘nose-in/nose-out’ helicopter shot (see SC part1) may look unconvincing on web-video but is extremely precise in full-size / PSD format. So, anyone wishing to prove the nose-out is a different ‘object’ than the nose-in, has a formidable task on his hands."
What you are doing is exactly what video researchers (mostly because of LACK of available high-res material) have been accused to do. That is, drawing conclusions from compressed pixels. I will, in time, publish a high-resolution comparison of the nose-in/nose-out which will show you the real thing. The size, shape and outline of the two in-out objects (cockpit?...) are the same - pixel-by-pixel. The differences you see on the files extracted from September Clues is only a contrast problem.
BoneZ Posted: Aug 28 2007, 01:05 AM
9/11 Researcher
Group: Global Mod
Posts: 847
Member No.: 69
Joined: 15-October 06
As far as the nose-in/out, i can guarantee that no matter how high of resolution pictures you show, the end result will be the same as i've shown, unless you manipulate or fake the nose out. Those are two totally different shapes and no sort of resolution will make those shapes identical unless they're microscopic so you can't see them to match them up.
And that was the last that was seen of Simon Shack.
As can be seen, it's far from being a match
_________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: Re: Why did major networks NOT show the chopper 5 footage?
catfish wrote:
Chek I don't give a stuff about September Clues and CB Brooklyn.
This thread is about my question:
Which it appeared to me that gruts answered.
I then went into some further detail about the so-called and spurious nose out that wasn't shot.
My further guess is that by the time the evening repeat news cycle was in full swing, the Battery Park footage was available and was a more spectacular image.
All cleared up now? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Why didn't they show this clip but instead showed other less "good" shots?
personnaly, i think your asking the wrong people.
nobody here could actually know the actual reason without guessing, and that goes for those who believe no planes or tv fakery also.
its always going to be a presumption no matter who answers or how good the answer is, unless you ask the news channels themselves, but even then its not gaurenteed your gonna get a honest answer.
therefore IMO its pointless speculation and certainly not provable which ever side of the debate your coming from.
I'm asking because I find it very puzzling. There's no doubt they had access to this shot so how come they didn't show it?
Do you find it puzzling that they would not show this shot marky?
Much of 911 is 'puzzling' in that this site exists because the pieces simply don't fit. Unfortunately, we don't have the picture that appeared on the box, hence we can only guess why specific images and footage didn't appear on certain dates. _________________ 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
with how long they covered the storey and lenghts they went to cover ever angle i would of thought they would of shown all available shots and footage.
however if they did'nt like you say show all shots, then i don't find it puzzling or suspicious myself.
the main reason why is because there could be a number of reasons why they did'nt show it, anything from having something to hide all the way down to just simply not being appealing to whoever decides what to air or use it as material.
i have no way of knowing the reasons why and anything i suggest would just be speculation/guessing, and i don't want to guess because a guess will always be biased as it will reflect my belief system.
people believing planes hit the towers will put it down to something other than suspicious.
people believing no planes or tv fakery will think its suspicous.
the reality is though none of us know for sure.
but myself i don't find it suspicious it was'nt shown, but then i'm approaching it from the prespective that there was no tv fakery and there were planes, maybe if i believed no planes and tv fakery then i would think it was suspicous.
either way i'd be speculating or unable to know if it is suspicous or if it has a perfectly innocent explaintion.
either way i'd be speculating or unable to know if it is suspicous or if it has a perfectly innocent explaintion.
Well if you were speculating, and there's no shame in that after all , what would be your speculative "perfectly innocent explanaition"? _________________ Govern : To control
just because you find it puzzling doesn't mean that it is.
as I have a job and a life I don't have time to sit through the entire september 11th television archive so I'll have to take your word for it that you have watched it all and that this clip was not shown again that day - except on CNN - yes?
do you know for certain that it was not shown again on any other date - eg on the 12th September, 13th September, 14th September, 15th September, 16th September etc - or are you just speculating?
and if you think it's suspicious then perhaps you can explain why you think it's suspicious instead of just repeating yourself.
For six hours after the crash there are only five or six shots of the crash.
None of these shots are as clear as the chopper high five shot aired live by Fox 5 New York.
For some reason only two of these shots are repeated as you say "ad nauseam"
The best and clearest shot from chopper five is not shown even though the producer obviously has it there next to the other two. _________________ Govern : To control
ok if you want me guess, then im guessing it was because the screen turning to black spoilt the shot, therefore they opted for other shots that had no interference.
The black screen does not detract from this being the best shot the networks could have aired.
You'd have thought the producers would have been scurrying around frantically to find all different videos of the plane hitting the towers wouldn't you?
Why would he make the decision not to show this one even though it's sat right in front of him?
I think one of these guys would have shown it even if the screen did go black. But they don't _________________ Govern : To control
The black screen does not detract from this being the best shot the networks could have aired.
You'd have thought the producers would have been scurrying around frantically to find all different videos of the plane hitting the towers wouldn't you?
Why would he make the decision not to show this one even though it's sat right in front of him?
I think one of these guys would have shown it even if the screen did go black. But they don't
but surely we all know news is also based on presentation and professionalism(well trying to come across as professional), some producers would surely deem the shot to be amatuerish.
if other networks showed it then maybe they took the importence of the shot over presentation.
if not then they dropped it for the shots which were equally dramatic which also shows a plane hit and in full sequence without any hiccups.
(i am guessing remember, but im trying to look at from their point of view as a news channel/company)
but the point is it could be the answer for all i know, which is why i don't find it suspicous based on the information given this far.
some shots were shown over and over, some weren't. I dunno why this one apparently wasn't repeated but I don't think there's necessarily anything suspicious about it unless you want to believe that there is.
two shots were shown over and over, one wasn't. I dunno why this one wasn't repeated that's why I think it's suspicious. _________________ Govern : To control
well I understand that in the "no planes" ghetto they think that what you call the "nose-out" proves that the video is fake. do you believe this as well and if so do you think this is what the "mediaperps" were trying to hide by apparently not showing it again?
one problem with this belief is that other clips which show the same thing in more detail (eg the evan fairbanks clip) were shown over and over again.
so what do you think this footage shows that they wouldn't want to repeat?
and if all the videos are fake - then why would the perps deliberately insert something into other videos that they were apparently trying to hide in this video?
especially as there is actually nothing unusual about this footage.
the plane hits - momentum sends a huge quantity of jetfuel and miscellaneous debris through the building in the same direction - it crashes through the windows of the adjacent and opposite sides of the wtc and the fuel explodes into fireballs.
i think that this is only a puzzler if you insist on trying to turn it into one.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject:
After comparing it with others, I'd speculate that it's because the big blooming orange and black explosion wasn't as visible from that angle.
Perhaps TV directors didn't care much about the impact - they wanted the readily available dramatic hollywood-style explosion on screen. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
especially as there is actually nothing unusual about this footage.
I guess the gameplan is to just keep on repeating it regardless....
lol - I was just trying to answer your question.
you keep saying that something is suspicious but you won't say what it is. if you think there is something unusual about this footge then what is it? if you think somebody is trying to hide something then what is it?
do you have a point or are you just taking the piss?
I guess the gameplan is to just keep on repeating it regardless....
its been pointed out more than adequadely, that not showing the clip is not suspicious based on the information provided.
why you seem determined that we should all sway our opinons to your way of thinking when there is nothing in it apart from speculation is what is really puzzling.
clinging to a belief is fine, but that dos'nt make any of the information provided in this thread "compelling"
and what gameplan are you talking about? ah i see if they don't agree with you they must be working for the otherside
i get it, well if it helps you cling to your belief that the clip is suspicious then that must be the case, yet another fruitloop argument.
"hey guys look at my information" "you must agree ok, but be warned if you don't agree, im right! your wrong and have a game plan ok"
so desprete are they to convince themselves they are not wrong, they will put it down to everyone having a plan or working for the perps inorder to avoid the error of judgement they have made in their evidence or in some cases none evidence.
when are people going to be honest with themselves? i don't get the embarrasment of admitting something was misjudged or wrong that it gets to the point of everyone else being the problem rather than their judgement.
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
, what would be your speculative "perfectly innocent explanaition"?
