Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:56 am Post subject:
Chek, you are making and repeating a claim. You are claiming that the "dust explosion" looks different than the "nose". Come on, Chek. I'll even give you a hint. 3 of them are "noses" and 3 of them are "dust explosions". You said they are "not even close".
Which are which? And how can you tell? Back up your claim, or abandon it.
Marky has failed the test. I at least commend you for taking the test honestly. Thank you for making the point. They are indistinguishable.
Would anyone else like to guess which are "nose" and which are "dust explosions"?
ace baker ignores all the points i made about the "nose out" not actually being a nose out but a dust/explosion out through the windows.
if you really want me to play your stupid game although its irrelivant because your comparing a planes nose to an explosion then my answers are thus:
CDF planes nose
ABE dust cloud
or vise versa.
go back to your optical illusion thread and think about it.
why was there no exit hole? why dos'nt it appear from head on shots? why does the size of the nose in nose out differ from each other?
its simply, because it was the explosion/dust being forced through the windows of the wtc and they first appear in the shape of the windows themselves, and from a side on view give the illusion of the planes nose passing through.
why did you ignore my other points ace?
Last edited by marky 54 on Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
I asked: Why did the major networks not show the chopper 5 footage?
I asked this because for about six hours the major networks only had three shots of 'planes hitting the towers.
They showed the other two over and over but not this one despite the fact it came from Fox 5 New York's chopper.
Only 3 people answered the question!
marky54 answered:
marky54 wrote:
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.
and
marky54 wrote:
]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
Now chek answered:
chek wrote:
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.
I don't believe this. I reckon a "normal" producer/director on the day would have showed some grainy mobile phone footage if someone would have brought it in! Nevermind if it wasn't hollywood enough or looked too amateurish!
The last person to answer was Ace Baker:
Ace Baker wrote:
1. There is no plane in the opening wide shot. The plane should be well within the shot in frames 1-60, and more than large enough and dark enough to show up.
2. The nose of the airplane came out the reverse side. I.E., they let the alpha channel play too long.
3. There is a fade to black, which cannot be a signal interruption.
4. The motion of the plane becomes more unstable after stabilizing the video.
1. Very good worth investigating further. That's what got me searching for this clip in the first place.
2. If the video has a fake plane inserted over a missile, maybe they didn't expect the missile to come out of the other side. Plenty of threads for this though.
3. The fade to black. If it was to cover the nose-out it was too late. But maybe it was for something else. See below.
4. No comment.
There is definitely something to hide in the second strike as evidenced by the missing frames in these videos:
I am intensely confused by this thread. There are some small blurs (that all look slightly different to me) that are supposed to confirm the 'nose out' is the nose? Frankly, I don't find that convincing.
For the record, I'd say C, D and F look more similar to one another and A and E, with B looking different again but closer to A and E.
Did I win? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
I asked: Why did the major networks not show the chopper 5 footage?
I asked this because for about six hours the major networks only had three shots of 'planes hitting the towers.
They showed the other two over and over but not this one despite the fact it came from Fox 5 New York's chopper.
Only 3 people answered the question!
marky54 answered:
marky54 wrote:
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.
and
marky54 wrote:
]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
Now chek answered:
chek wrote:
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.
I don't believe this. I reckon a "normal" producer/director on the day would have showed some grainy mobile phone footage if someone would have brought it in! Nevermind if it wasn't hollywood enough or looked too amateurish!
The last person to answer was Ace Baker:
Ace Baker wrote:
1. There is no plane in the opening wide shot. The plane should be well within the shot in frames 1-60, and more than large enough and dark enough to show up.
2. The nose of the airplane came out the reverse side. I.E., they let the alpha channel play too long.
3. There is a fade to black, which cannot be a signal interruption.
4. The motion of the plane becomes more unstable after stabilizing the video.
1. Very good worth investigating further. That's what got me searching for this clip in the first place.
2. If the video has a fake plane inserted over a missile, maybe they didn't expect the missile to come out of the other side. Plenty of threads for this though.
3. The fade to black. If it was to cover the nose-out it was too late. But maybe it was for something else. See below.
4. No comment.
There is definitely something to hide in the second strike as evidenced by the missing frames in these videos:
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
Ace Baker wrote:
Marky has failed the test. I at least commend you for taking the test honestly. Thank you for making the point. They are indistinguishable.
Would anyone else like to guess which are "nose" and which are "dust explosions"?
ace baker ignores all the points i made about the "nose out" not actually being a nose out but a dust/explosion out through the windows.
if you really want me to play your stupid game although its irrelivant because your comparing a planes nose to an explosion then my answers are thus:
CDF planes nose
ABE dust cloud
or vise versa.
go back to your optical illusion thread and think about it.
why was there no exit hole? why dos'nt it appear from head on shots? why does the size of the nose in nose out differ from each other?
its simply, because it was the explosion/dust being forced through the windows of the wtc and they first appear in the shape of the windows themselves, and from a side on view give the illusion of the planes nose passing through.
why did you ignore my other points ace?
Marky, a dust explosion will explode, that is, expand. You have not attempted to provide a physical explanation for how the "explosion" could come to a point.
Why was there no exit hole?
LOL. Because there was no large piece of anything exiting that would make a hole. Maybe you don't remember, but for a long time the official story was that the nose out really WAS a nose out, or an engine out. But then it was US truthseekers who pointed out the lack of an exit hole. The official story then had to change to make it a "dust explosion".
Marky has failed the test. I at least commend you for taking the test honestly. Thank you for making the point. They are indistinguishable.
Would anyone else like to guess which are "nose" and which are "dust explosions"?
ace baker ignores all the points i made about the "nose out" not actually being a nose out but a dust/explosion out through the windows.
if you really want me to play your stupid game although its irrelivant because your comparing a planes nose to an explosion then my answers are thus:
CDF planes nose
ABE dust cloud
or vise versa.
go back to your optical illusion thread and think about it.
why was there no exit hole? why dos'nt it appear from head on shots? why does the size of the nose in nose out differ from each other?
its simply, because it was the explosion/dust being forced through the windows of the wtc and they first appear in the shape of the windows themselves, and from a side on view give the illusion of the planes nose passing through.
why did you ignore my other points ace?
Marky, a dust explosion will explode, that is, expand. You have not attempted to provide a physical explanation for how the "explosion" could come to a point.
Why was there no exit hole?
LOL. Because there was no large piece of anything exiting that would make a hole. Maybe you don't remember, but for a long time the official story was that the nose out really WAS a nose out, or an engine out. But then it was US truthseekers who pointed out the lack of an exit hole. The official story then had to change to make it a "dust explosion".
i don't care who says what im calling the truth here.
and i did expand earlier in thread no suprise you missed it or failed to notice.
and explosion does explode but if passing through something the grey smoke of dust or what ever will take on the appearence of the shape its passing through in the very first second if it has enough force.
with the speed of the plane impact and explosion i'd say it had enough force to exit like a giant squib exiting the windows, giving an optical illusion that the nose of the plane passed right through.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 107 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
I am intensely confused by this thread. There are some small blurs (that all look slightly different to me) that are supposed to confirm the 'nose out' is the nose? Frankly, I don't find that convincing.
For the record, I'd say C, D and F look more similar to one another and A and E, with B looking different again but closer to A and E.
Did I win?
No. C,D and F are not one group. Also, you would need to decide which group looks more like the nose of a Boeing, and which looks more like a dust explosion.
So what is your explanation for why there is no plane in the wide shot of Chopper 5?
It's invisible. Point out something else in the longshot with a15ft width resolution, and we'll talk further.
Ace Baker wrote:
What would it take to falsify that view?
Some supremely dastardly plan that yet would be no match against an inept pretend video technician who waffled about 'alpha channels' claiming the perps accidentally let the nose out show, when the size and shapes aren't even close ?
Aren't even close? OK genius, which are which?
A. dustcloud
B. dustcloud
C. dustcloud
D. dustcloud
E. dustcloud
F. dustcloud
the plane crashed into the side of the tower at great speed and in one direction, it is not suprising that debris from the plane and debris gathered along the way were ejected out of the opposite side of the towers in the same direction.
the only error of course is that it was a "nose out".
i see a explosion which takes on the form of a dustcloud before the orange ball of fire emerges, which also had debris within it and exiting the fireball and landing in the street.
the dustcloud goes through the windows, meaning when the dustcloud first emerges it is shaped like the windows because the airflow is moving forwards at great speed, it then vanishes as the dustcloud and explosion take on the appearence of a cauliflower once outside the towers.
blow some flower through a straw as hard as you can it will emerge in the same shape as the straw nearer to the straw before emergeing into a ball of dust.
take note of how exhaust fumes come out of the back end of a car, nearer to the exhaust in takes on the shape of the exhaust exit hole.
no suprise then the emerging explosion nearer to the towers first takes on the shape of the windows its emerging from giving it the appearence of an object emerging due to windows having a typical square/flat sided shape that the airflow is pushed through.
examples can be found anywhere, they might not be the exact same situation but they demonstrat the shape and appearence things take when pushed through with enough pressure, in every case the item or object things are pushed through dictates what shape the emerging substance first takes.
I am intensely confused by this thread. There are some small blurs (that all look slightly different to me) that are supposed to confirm the 'nose out' is the nose? Frankly, I don't find that convincing.
For the record, I'd say C, D and F look more similar to one another and A and E, with B looking different again but closer to A and E.
Did I win?
No. C,D and F are not one group. Also, you would need to decide which group looks more like the nose of a Boeing, and which looks more like a dust explosion.
Bah! I was hoping to get a prize!
None of them look like either a boeing or a dust cloud to me. They look like a bunch of indistinct blurs. For all I know they could be the top of the empire state building at a great distance. In fact, you could probably 'prove' the empire state building and the north tower wtc are actually the same building by showing blurry, low res extreme distance shots of a few pixels of the top of both and pointing out they come out looking kinda the same. I just don't understand what you think you're proving. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
I asked: Why did the major networks not show the chopper 5 footage?
and in attempting to answer your own question, you basically said that IF there was no plane and IF they used a missile, they would need to add a fake plane inserted over a missile into the video - and IF they did that then maybe your subsequent speculations might make some sort of sense.
just the mere fact that no claimer of NPT etc can tackle your points or no defender of NPT can tackle you points says all that needs to be said period.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject:
While we're on this subject - has anyone got a link to the long distance shot from roughly the same angle as the unzoomed chopper 5 longshot that RAE Farnborough used to calculate the run in speed?
I think it was mentioned in a video I saw, but I can't find any RAE documentation of the speed on the net. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
I asked: Why did the major networks not show the chopper 5 footage?
and in attempting to answer your own question, you basically said that IF there was no plane and IF they used a missile, they would need to add a fake plane inserted over a missile into the video - and IF they did that then maybe your subsequent speculations might make some sort of sense.
it's all a bit iffy though isn't it?
and what if your initial premise is complete *?
@gruts you never answered the question and still haven't.
The points I made were addressing ace's answers. NOT an answer to my question.
Oh and maybe you could remind me where I said this:
gruts wrote:
don't forget that according to ace, catfish & co, all the videos were faked by the perps
@marky if you "reckon" that a TV news producer isn't going to show footage of a 'plane hitting a building when he has it on his desk then that's fair enough. Reckon away.
I just happen to think my reckoning is a bit more likely. _________________ Govern : To control
I asked: Why did the major networks not show the chopper 5 footage?
and in attempting to answer your own question, you basically said that IF there was no plane and IF they used a missile, they would need to add a fake plane inserted over a missile into the video - and IF they did that then maybe your subsequent speculations might make some sort of sense.
it's all a bit iffy though isn't it?
and what if your initial premise is complete *?
@gruts you never answered the question and still haven't.
The points I made were addressing ace's answers. NOT an answer to my question.
Oh and maybe you could remind me where I said this:
gruts wrote:
don't forget that according to ace, catfish & co, all the videos were faked by the perps
@marky if you "reckon" that a TV news producer isn't going to show footage of a 'plane hitting a building when he has it on his desk then that's fair enough. Reckon away.
I just happen to think my reckoning is a bit more likely.
thats cool and its not strange you reckon your reckoning is more likely.
however if you reckon the footage was'nt shown because of the nose out, then feel free to answer the points i make about it not being a nose out, ferther up in the thread.
because if im right that means no nose out which = nothing to hide in footage with a fade to black.
it really is annoying when you go to lenghts to demonstrate or show what is claimed might not be what we see, yet no one who believes the theory or even those who pretend not to be impartial but defend npt'ers just ignore the points and go on like it never happened.
the plane crashed into the side of the tower at great speed and in one direction, it is not suprising that debris from the plane and debris gathered along the way were ejected out of the opposite side of the towers in the same direction.
the only error of course is that it was a "nose out".
i see a explosion which takes on the form of a dustcloud before the orange ball of fire emerges, which also had debris within it and exiting the fireball and landing in the street.
the dustcloud goes through the windows, meaning when the dustcloud first emerges it is shaped like the windows because the airflow is moving forwards at great speed, it then vanishes as the dustcloud and explosion take on the appearence of a cauliflower once outside the towers.
blow some flower through a straw as hard as you can it will emerge in the same shape as the straw nearer to the straw before emergeing into a ball of dust.
take note of how exhaust fumes come out of the back end of a car, nearer to the exhaust in takes on the shape of the exhaust exit hole.
no suprise then the emerging explosion nearer to the towers first takes on the shape of the windows its emerging from giving it the appearence of an object emerging due to windows having a typical square/flat sided shape that the airflow is pushed through.
examples can be found anywhere, they might not be the exact same situation but they demonstrat the shape and appearence things take when pushed through with enough pressure, in every case the item or object things are pushed through dictates what shape the emerging substance first takes.
sorry for spamming this but npt'ers/tvfakerys and pretend impartial posters have currently got their blinkers on, and believing ignoring something means it cannot be true.
Okay. Your answer was basically "there is no puzzle to this".
I think it is puzzling that this shot wasn't aired repeatedly like the others. You don't. Thanks for the reply.
@marky54
I don't think the footage wasn't aired to hide the nose-out. See the post above that you quoted all of but obviously didn't read it very well. Please sit and think about it for a while. _________________ Govern : To control
Okay. Your answer was basically "there is no puzzle to this".
I think it is puzzling that this shot wasn't aired repeatedly like the others. You don't. Thanks for the reply.
@marky54
I don't think the footage wasn't aired to hide the nose-out. See the post above that you quoted all of but obviously didn't read it very well. Please sit and think about it for a while.
well would you like to confirm if im wrong or not and why?
especially seeing as though you defend those who promote this theory at every turn and seem to think there is a basis for no plane of which nose out is a part off?
thanks for confirming what happens each and everytime someone provides something or an arguement that goes against what they want to mislead people about.
avoidence or ignoring.
then you expect people like me to take npt seriously when nobody can tackle anything that would go against it?
is npt just a hobby then that everyone else should leave alone so they are able to spread lies and disinfo? or is somebody going to point out where im wrong or if it is a likely explaination for the nose out?
Okay. Your answer was basically "there is no puzzle to this".
I think it is puzzling that this shot wasn't aired repeatedly like the others. You don't. Thanks for the reply.
what's even more puzzling is that they might try to hide the "nose out" in this shot and then deliberately insert it into several other of their "fake" videos. why do you think they did that?
and why try to hide it with a "fade to black" that doesn't actually hide it, when it would have been easier to just switch to another shot?
and if your "nose out" scenario was true - then what would be the point of fading to black after the "nose out" had happened?
at that point, there's nothing left to hide....
Last edited by gruts on Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
thanks for confirming what happens each and everytime someone provides something or an arguement that goes against what they want to mislead people about.
avoidence or ignoring.
then you expect people like me to take npt seriously when nobody can tackle anything that would go against it?
is npt just a hobby then that everyone else should leave alone so they are able to spread lies and disinfo? or is somebody going to point out where im wrong or if it is a likely explaination for the nose out?
It's just that it's a very fast moving dust cloud with a spiralling white trail?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject:
catfish wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
catfish wrote:
Would you like to read the thread again?
thanks for confirming what happens each and everytime someone provides something or an arguement that goes against what they want to mislead people about.
avoidence or ignoring.
then you expect people like me to take npt seriously when nobody can tackle anything that would go against it?
is npt just a hobby then that everyone else should leave alone so they are able to spread lies and disinfo? or is somebody going to point out where im wrong or if it is a likely explaination for the nose out?
It's just that it's a very fast moving dust cloud with a spiralling white trail?
Don't forget all that unignited fuel just waiting to conflagrate.
My guess would be that after impact the interior of those levels would be a colloid of fuel and various debris including the engine core which exited in that direction also. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
thanks for confirming what happens each and everytime someone provides something or an arguement that goes against what they want to mislead people about.
avoidence or ignoring.
then you expect people like me to take npt seriously when nobody can tackle anything that would go against it?
is npt just a hobby then that everyone else should leave alone so they are able to spread lies and disinfo? or is somebody going to point out where im wrong or if it is a likely explaination for the nose out?
It's just that it's a very fast moving dust cloud with a spiralling white trail?
whats your game? that dos'nt even show the nose out.
it shows the explosion and exiting debris which had the white trail, it dos'nt show the exiting dustcloud in question at all.
i am certain at this point your playing dumb and avoiding my whole arguement. i thought you were impartial? you seem even more evasive than a fully fanatical npt believer.
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
