i wonder if nick irving could produce another point by point debunking of the new september clues?
One would have to say Irving would only need to do so if the new september clues replies to Irvings efforts by showing how he's wrong.
If it ignores those points of contention, of which there are many, then what would be the point?
One thing that gets me about the first is this.
The part called "flying telephants"....
It begins by comparing two shots.
One from across the river and the next from around a ninety degree angle to the first.
Or in other words, the first clip shows the plane's descent from the side and the next one from an end-on p.o.v.
Apart from the obvious massive difference in the points of view or perspective of these shots (which would create perceived differences in the angles of the planes descent) there is another discrepancy...
If you haven't before now... try this...
Get a stopwatch and time the two shots.
The first shot or side-on shot: From when the arrows appear to the planes impact is around 7.5 seconds long.
Note:0:21 seconds.
Impact...
Note 0:29 seconds giving a duration of 8 seconds(on a stopwatch it's more like 7.5)
The second shot or end-on shot: From the moment the plane enters the screen at the top to impact is around 13 seconds.
Note 0:38 seconds to
0:52 seconds.
That's a difference of around five seconds in the length of the clips.
The time it takes, from the appearence of the plane in the second clip, to when it re-emerges from behind the smoking tower is around 5 seconds.
Note 0:38 to 0:44.
The first clip = 0:21 seconds to 0:29 = 8 secs long
The second clip = 0:38 seconds to 0:52 = 14 seconds long.
Therefore there is a difference in length between the clips of an average of 5 seconds (give or take youtube's imprecise second count).
This leaves us with around 7.5 seconds for a perspective-related comparison of the two clips. The length of the first clip.
That is when the comparison should begin because the footage showing the "steep breathtaking descent" of the second clip and the time it takes is not included in the first clip.
This is a provable, water tight fact because the clips are not the same length.
Conclusion: The "steep breathtaking descent" put forward by September Clues in clip two, ends at the point that the first side-on clip begins.
Therefore the two clips are only comparable from the point at which the plane emerges at the left of the screen in the first clip, and from when the plane emerges from behind the smoking tower in the second.
Clip 1 starts here...
The comparison with second clip should start here...
With the difference in perspective in mind this reduces considerably the idea that the difference in the two clips 'proves' they were faked.
Note how the arrows in each clip now line up perfectly with reference to the top of the towers.
If the missing 5 seconds were included in the first clip we may be able to see (difference in perspective included) the same angle of descent.
The missing 5 seconds are not included in September Clues, (if they exist) nor is there mention of the fact that the two clips are not the same length.
This is proof of yet more deception in September Clues.
I dont expect you to accept this as evidence against your belief system of course and I know I have just completely wasted my time.
this is just one of many examples of deliberate dishonesty on the part of the tv fakery crowd....
but you're right - no matter how many times you point stuff like this out, they just keep on repeating it. _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
i wonder if nick irving could produce another point by point debunking of the new september clues?
truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf
Whereas I tend to wonder if you would ever develop any analytical/critical skills whatsoever yourself, or will you always passively need these things to be done for you?
There's a reason these NPT fraudsters use video as their preferred medium to the TV addled. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
There's a reason these NPT fraudsters use video as their preferred medium to the TV addled.
chek the pixel pushers have nothing better to work with. They have not figured out, nor do they have the funding, to create the 3d model to prove or disprove anything. They use bogus video from sources unknown and quality that one can piss a better picture and they look for anomilies as if the video process itself wont deliver many of these.
I have seen videos purposely changed and then agree they are fraudsters but many of the researchers lost in pixels are just not able to access the correct tools or original recordings. Of course this would lead to the TV addled part of your statement quite well since they use garbage video. GIGO Garbage in Garbage Out.
What would the 911 toof movement do if one of their own who altered video to tell a story? If they took original video from that day and the owner and creator of the original stands up to tell them that the movement members altered the original into lies? Don't you think it's an interesting question? Would 911 truth think it is okay to alter original footage to fit their agenda? Who is the fraud? Imagine if you were defending altered footage?
Disernment is important as it seperates the wheat from the chafe.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject:
911Eyewitness wrote:
chek wrote:
There's a reason these NPT fraudsters use video as their preferred medium to the TV addled.
chek the pixel pushers have nothing better to work with. They have not figured out, nor do they have the funding, to create the 3d model to prove or disprove anything. They use bogus video from sources unknown and quality that one can piss a better picture and they look for anomilies as if the video process itself wont deliver many of these.
I have seen videos purposely changed and then agree they are fraudsters but many of the researchers lost in pixels are just not able to access the correct tools or original recordings. Of course this would lead to the TV addled part of your statement quite well since they use garbage video. GIGO Garbage in Garbage Out.
What would the 911 toof movement do if one of their own who altered video to tell a story? If they took original video from that day and the owner and creator of the original stands up to tell them that the movement members altered the original into lies? Don't you think it's an interesting question? Would 911 truth think it is okay to alter original footage to fit their agenda? Who is the fraud? Imagine if you were defending altered footage?
Discernment is important as it separates the wheat from the chaff.
Jesus, Rick - is it you or me?
But I'm increasingly finding that once you've broken out of 'rick' mode you can sometimes be eminently sensible. A combination of words which could never happen in, say, Killtown or Fred Smarts' case
And you're right - the only way to draw some (as opposed to a final) - conclusion, is to examine as much evidence as possible and attempt to derive some synergistic understanding of what occurred.
The method more likely to resolve anomalies is more data, rather than hypnotic fixation.
None of us do know for sure yet, but we can recognise some of the chaff.
(Which interestingly is the name given by the military to devices which are designed to obviate and confuse an enemy. Some can be as unsophisticated as simple aluminium needles ... but I'll stop there before another Killtown anology rears it's pretty head). _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject:
911Eyewitness wrote:
chek wrote:
There's a reason these NPT fraudsters use video as their preferred medium to the TV addled.
chek the pixel pushers have nothing better to work with. They have not figured out, nor do they have the funding, to create the 3d model to prove or disprove anything. They use bogus video from sources unknown and quality that one can piss a better picture and they look for anomilies as if the video process itself wont deliver many of these.
I have seen videos purposely changed and then agree they are fraudsters but many of the researchers lost in pixels are just not able to access the correct tools or original recordings. Of course this would lead to the TV addled part of your statement quite well since they use garbage video. GIGO Garbage in Garbage Out.
What would the 911 toof movement do if one of their own who altered video to tell a story? If they took original video from that day and the owner and creator of the original stands up to tell them that the movement members altered the original into lies? Don't you think it's an interesting question? Would 911 truth think it is okay to alter original footage to fit their agenda? Who is the fraud? Imagine if you were defending altered footage?
Disernment is important as it seperates the wheat from the chafe.
If you don't mind Rick I'll venture an answer too
Given that I got into truthseeking in my life as a response to to personal disgust with lies and hypocrisy, my own view of deliberate fraudsters is extremely low and I consider such people to be enemies of Truth and essentially lost in this world
I don't think "9/11 Truth" in general is going to do a damn thing about it. What could be done? Take them to court? I hardly see that happening. Maybe if 9/11 was successfully exposed and indictments took place of persons within the military industrial complex, then deliberate fraudsters could perhaps be prosecuted, but it seems too remote to me to be focused on atm
Failing that then I believe in plain talking, calling fraud fraud, and doing the best to help those who are "TV addled": IF they will allow themselves to be helped
Regrettably that is rarely the case with those vulnerable to "perception fraud" (seems a good a description of the majority of NPT material) precisely because they are vulnerable in the first place: and given that fraud tends to be associated with premeditation and pre-planning to deceive, it is an extra twist of the knife that abusing the vulnerable must be part of the mandate of the Fraud creating NPT pushers from the beginning
I dont like that: not at all _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
So John - you know how I've always loved you - and you know perfectly well how fraudulent it is- and yet you still hold the argument. Man I think youre shifting your position. It's all a perception and conception. nothing is real and ultimate. Tony and John are getting better by the day. There is no difference really _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Regrettably that is rarely the case with those vulnerable to "perception fraud" (seems a good a description of the majority of NPT material) precisely because they are vulnerable in the first place: and given that fraud tends to be associated with premeditation and pre-planning to deceive, it is an extra twist of the knife that abusing the vulnerable must be part of the mandate of the Fraud creating NPT pushers from the beginning
sadly, there's a certain percentage of people who would rather believe in some exotic fantasy than a more mundane reality.
I can see the appeal of NPT/tv fakery from that point of view.
So maybe the NPT sheeple are quite happy to be fooled by the idea that they're the 9/11 truth vanguard who have discovered something incredible that the rest of us just haven't woken up to yet - even if they know that they're really only fooling themselves. _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
in reference to the divebomber vs horizontal clips, one may say the length of the clips is different, but the fact remains that one is clearly divebombing and the others are not.
case closed
NEXT!
how about explaining the 'divine elevation' clip?
let me guess, there was a sudden gust of wind?
in reference to the divebomber vs horizontal clips, one may say the length of the clips is different, but the fact remains that one is clearly divebombing and the others are not.
case closed
NEXT!
Your ability to delude yourself is staggering.
The "divebombing" in the second clip, as clearly shown in the explanation above, occurs BEFORE the first clip begins.
By denying that fact you are clearly avoiding something that shatters your precious belief system.
Your denial smacks of a young childs "but there must be a Santa Claus" type thrashings.
Take a few breaths, study the evidence presented again, and realise for your own sake the yellow brick road you've been led down.
"What would the 911 toof movement do if one of their own who altered video to tell a story? If they took original video from that day and the owner and creator of the original stands up to tell them that the movement members altered the original into lies? Don't you think it's an interesting question? Would 911 truth think it is okay to alter original footage to fit their agenda? Who is the fraud? Imagine if you were defending altered footage?"
-- well, I'll tell ya, Rick : I knew that some of genghis6199's footage was faked at his end, but his results were such fun to watch that I never saw any point in complaining. _________________ http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
Quote:
Your ability to delude yourself is staggering.
The "divebombing" in the second clip, as clearly shown in the explanation above, occurs BEFORE the first clip begins.
here is an analysis of the various DIFFERENT flightpaths
Jfk, I take it that you are familiar with the concepts of 'different points of view' and 'perspective'?
They both basically boil down to the different perceptions afforded by changes in angular view and distance. Thus a viewpoint of an event from the north (that is, in the direction of an imaginary line ultimately taking us to Santa Claus' house) will differ to that of one from the south, or east or west and so forth with all points in between.
I'll also assume that once that's been absorbed, you'll hopefully appreciate that the same event will look different depending on the event and the angular relationship of the viewer to it. Let's continue by familiarising ourselves with the relevant latter part of the event itself.
"By 8:58, the plane was heading towards New York City and descended from an altitude of 28,500 feet over New Jersey. From the time al-Shehhi completed the turn toward New York (approximately 8:58 ) to the moment of impact (9:02:40), the plane went into a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 40 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175
We also know from the many different video sources that despite the average rate of descent noted above, that UA175 reduced its rate of descent and more or less levelled off during the final phase of its run-in to WTC2 before making landfall over Manhattan.
However you seem to be confused by Genghis 'dive bomber', almost as much as Genghis himself is. That's because despite his grandiose claims to regarding himself as a 'film maker', he's nothing of the sort - being merely a software video editor. Any knowledge and experience that a proper film maker would learn in his apprenticeship such as use of lighting, lenses and composition has unfortunately passed Genghis by.
Allow me to illustrate. We won't even be in the same country for this, but please bear with me as the principle is the same wherever you may be on Earth.
Above is an image of 1 Canada Square, popularly known as Canary Wharf Tower. Situated in the heart of Mammon aka the City of London, the Tower is topped by a (no doubt masonic) pyramid structure.
The dimensions of this pyramid are:
40 metres high
30 metres square at the base
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square#Notable_facts_about_the _pyramid
I've pasted onto it a frontal view of a B767 to the same scale.
Airshows are a very popular passtime in the summer months in the UK, and some of the enthusiasts who attend them invest in very high end equipment to achieve close up images of the aircraft that often operate some distance away from the crowd for safety reasons.
One such venue is Biggin Hill in Kent, an old Battle of Britain airfield situated a dozen miles or so from the centre of London.
The main subject of the photo below is an RAF Typhoon fighter of 29 Sqn but we're more concerned with the background in this instance.
Despite the distance involved, a high power telephoto lens - depending on atmospheric conditions - has no difficulty resolving a surprising amount of detail on the Canary Wharf Tower 12.71 miles away.
Again if you look closely, you'll see our to scale B767 pasted in.
At that distance in a real image, the contrast of our imaginary Boeing wouldn't be so high due to the light scattering by the atmosphere tending to transform the lighting and colour of objects towards grey, but the relative size wouldn't be affected.
At that distance (12.71 miles) at that speed (c.540mph) the transit time would be around 83 seconds. This translates in the case of the WTC footage to the 13 seconds showing the final 2 miles or so of UA175's flight to impact.
And so we see that Genghis' 'dive bomber' footage due to a having pretty good lens and a suitable viewpoint has captured both the descent and the run-in within its frame. It remains consistent with all the other footage which mainly caught the last few seconds of the flight.
It does take a little teeny-weny bit of research to make yourself familiar with what's going on in some of the footage, but none of it demands any great skills. Certainly far less effort than investing in a theory as ludicrous as NPT at the WTC.
If unravelling 911 and bringing those responsible to justice is seen as an information war, then the way I see it, you NPT warriors have not only been captured, disarmed and sent to the gulag but you're spending the rest of the war in the rape room bent over and taking it from the likes of simple Simon et al. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:43 pm; edited 3 times in total
the way I see it, you NPT warriors have not only been captured, disarmed and sent to the gulag but you're spending the rest of the war in the rape room bent over and taking it from the likes of simple Simon et al.
don't they just love it though?
mind you I bet jfk's orgasms are all fake.... _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
-- well, I'll tell ya, Rick : I knew that some of genghis6199's footage was faked at his end, but his results were such fun to watch that I never saw any point in complaining.
Pretty cavalier of you Rowen.
You say you knew some of genghis footage was faked. How?
I know only for sure because I created footage that day and know when it is altered. I also have bought some original footage from network sources that I have seen altered by toof.
There is great probability that genghis uses bogus footage because his sources are from the net, not the real source. I doubt he would actually alter footage himself. He just has bogus sources like everyone in 911 truth. Each stealing from the other and never fact checking outside their own circle jerk.
The only reason I can authoritatively state that footage is altered is because I have the original and people change it. And as you say no one listens and I am told it is divisive.
With all the no-plane work it is all done on compressed files of video from sources unknown and though hands no one knows. The variations of these on the net alone are a staggering testament to how lame people can be, to be jokers or evil.
The only way you can make that statement is you gave him footage that he altered. Or you are a first hand witness to that act. Is that the case?
However you seem to be confused by Genghis 'dive bomber', almost as much as Genghis himself is. That's because despite his grandiose claims to regarding himself as a 'film maker', he's nothing of the sort - being merely a software video editor. Any knowledge and experience that a proper film maker would learn in his apprenticeship such as use of lighting, lenses and composition has unfortunately passed Genghis by.
That is right on the money chek. I actually tried to explain the difference to Dylan and genghis. There is no zoom in film! You have to work with a focal plane! Framing, timing. aperture, lighting, did you know my first office for OnlineTV was in the New York Film Academy?
Most of what are rudiments you have explained are lost. They are only rudiments for those who work, or worked on real film. It is almost a dying art. Now it is quick-cut music videos (which I also made many hundreds actually) for the attention deficit generation. There are so many "videographers" (I feel generous to use this word) who, like Dylan, can't make it in film and will change the definition of filmmaker by brute force for their own vanity and career.
In the meantime your only error is assuming it is easy to grasp the concepts of film.
I am interested in TV fakery because TV is fake. I worked for almost 2 years at it for Viacom companies. We did all the special effects for Stephan King (strange fellow) and even the chase scene for Judge Dredd.
I was more intrigued with the virtual newsrooms and digital insertion, specifically for re-branding movies with new sponsors and creating news spots where you can appear and interact without ever being there. Again 1996. I left to create digital video distribution networks over the Internet. OnlineTV.com and got a huge write up in 1998 from your Financial Times for being the first to bring live Internet TV to the UK.
I am very aware of TV fakery and actually know where video fakery was used within the 911 movement to push an agenda. It is not genghis.
If the mods have deleted gruts's 4th post then you have deleted the wrong one.
The question of whether or not the post in question should be deleted is entirely debatable.
The post that "should" have been deleted, which is the one jfk took offence at, is still there. What reason is there for deleting the post that is gone?
dunno why my post has been removed, as I think I was making perfectly valid point.
so I hope I haven't been censored - especially as i remember very well the constant howls from the npt trolls to get other posters (myself included) banned from posting on "their" threads or banned from the forum altogether in a desperate attempt to stop the unrelenting pwnage of their "evidence", not to mention their attempts to get john white removed as a moderator for the heinous crime of trying to fairly moderate their endless breaking of forum rules.
there's definitely more than just incompetence in the way that shack, genghis and others have manipulated footage and littered it with misleading statements. there are many instances where it is clearly deliberate.
incompetence is not a crime, but lying while pretending to be seeking the truth is despicable - and i suppose that being an incompetent liar is worse than just being a liar....
and the reaction from jfk to being confronted with the truth - ie that his "different trajectories" are in fact the same trajectory seen from different perspectives at different moments in time - is also classic.
npt believers generally go into total reality denial mode whenever their ideas are shown to be BS. it really does seem that they would rather go on believing the lies than face the truth that they've been taken for a ride. _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
the way I see it, you NPT warriors have not only been captured, disarmed and sent to the gulag but you're spending the rest of the war in the rape room bent over and taking it from the likes of simple Simon et al.
don't they just love it though?
this sort of insult is offensive and in no way helpful to the debate.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:27 am Post subject:
jfk wrote:
Quote:
the way I see it, you NPT warriors have not only been captured, disarmed and sent to the gulag but you're spending the rest of the war in the rape room bent over and taking it from the likes of simple Simon et al.
don't they just love it though?
this sort of insult is offensive and in no way helpful to the debate.
Strictly speaking you never actually debate anything.
Because pasting yet another warmed-over recycled link ain't debating.
And if it gives you pause to think twice before posting even half the latest TVF/NPT rubbish doing the rounds that you spam this board with, then maybe that would be helpful.
If you treat a community as some kind of captive audience for your pet theories, you can't reasonably expect them to remain passive to it. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
this sort of insult is offensive and in no way helpful to the debate.
with respect to your "evidence" for "different trajectories" the debate's over and you've been proved wrong yet again.
doesn't the fact that everything you've ever posted has turned out to be bs tell you anything? _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
this sort of insult is offensive and in no way helpful to the debate.
with respect to your "evidence" for "different trajectories" the debate's over and you've been proved wrong yet again.
Well nothing is proved to jfk and he is not looking at the time diffence as a possibility of showing something different than what is embeded in his mind. It is obvious he feels the debate goes on.
In fact is it not over.
jfk, it is not what npt can do for you but what you can do for npt.
you must go now and disprove the analysis given. You only brush it off with trite response. You should provide the originial videos of both and your math to prove to the forum how full of * they are. Simple no? Just get the locations of the cameras use the explosion as point zero and work back.
You must have originals! Using a webfairy archive is pretty useless - do you agree? I am pretty sure that is genghis' source. Remember never stand to defend on another idiots word. Specially when the idiot is in another place! Let them speak for themselves and when you are ready to stand, make sure you can stand alone.
However, you cannot continue to post other peoples work as yours. If you cannot prove it yourself then you should find an alternative explanation that you can stand alone with. Stop holdiing the genghis wiener and you wont get the sick jokes tossed at you all the time.
in reference to the divebomber vs horizontal clips, one may say the length of the clips is different, but the fact remains that one is clearly divebombing and the others are not.
case closed
NEXT!
Not next! You see, this is the bogus answer, and it got wiener jokes from the head * here. What can you expect?
The very "defense" you provide here shows how terrible you are to represent any evidence. The fact that the clips are longer provides the problem that they explained carefully here. If you are really dedicated to your ideas then it is back to the drawing board, not case closed.
You are comparing, distance, speed, and time using videos from different angles at different time lengths covering the same distance and you have no problem with that? Before you make any deduction on this you have to get two videos you can match, close only works in hand grenades and horse shoes (I think bocce ball too).
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
