Remember this is a clip from the Naudet Brothers documentary so it is filmed on a professional camera.
Then states;
Quote:
How am I supposed to know the format and camera type the Naudet Brothers used?
Slight dichotomy there. Perhaps The Blair Witch Project was filmed on pro eqipment too?
There were many top end bits of kit out there on the day of 9/11 - I have yet to see bitingly sharp footage of anything. You keep ignoring the medium you are viewing these clips on. _________________ 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
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
prole art threat said;
Quote:
Remember this is a clip from the Naudet Brothers documentary so it is filmed on a professional camera.
Then states;
Quote:
How am I supposed to know the format and camera type the Naudet Brothers used?
Slight dichotomy there. Perhaps The Blair Witch Project was filmed on pro eqipment too?
There were many top end bits of kit out there on the day of 9/11 - I have yet to see bitingly sharp footage of anything. You keep ignoring the medium you are viewing these clips on.
More balderdash from Tele! Just because we recognise something as being 'professional' doesnt mean we have all the technical specifications of the equipment used. Please tell me how I would know this? _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject:
John's picture he reckons shows an 'object with wings' (so does a flying tampon but that doesnt make it a plane) he states 'prior to impact'. Im sorry but this looks more like a missile upon impact. These so called 'wings' are actually at the front of the object and to me looks like the first layers of shredded concrete being gouged from the building. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
ONCE AGAIN YOU SHOW ME A SO CALLED SUPERIOR IMAGE STILL WITH NO PLANE ON IT. YOU SHOW ME AN IMAGE OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE A MISSILE BUT THERE IS NO PLANE THERE! IGNATZ, ARE YOU SEEING A PLANE THERE? WHERE'S THE WINGS? THERE ARE NO WINGS. COME ON, GET A GRIP.
i take it there is no hologram of a plane either then?
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Gosling?
marky 54 wrote:
i take it there is no hologram of a plane either then?
I dont know, Marky. Tell Me. Tell me what you see. Go on, I double dares ya! _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject:
All you lot think the wings are there when actually it is the concrete spewing out upon impact. Seriously, you lot need to give that red pill another lick. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Gosling?
prole art threat wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
i take it there is no hologram of a plane either then?
I dont know, Marky. Tell Me. Tell me what you see. Go on, I double dares ya!
i see a blob that can not be identified as a clear object. that dosnt mean its not a plane, but also dosnt mean it is a plane so that must mean there was no plane then? so what was it? looks like a blob to me should i start a blob theory base on that footage?
Link _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
now you've changed the subject to the second impact. again it proves nothing, show me a closer piece of footage that shows no plane at all.
and you still cannot decide to state if you believe they were using holograms or no planes at all. you seem to use both to explain no plane being seen and a plane being seen.
one minute no plane the next: p1 "look a plane" p2 "no it was a hologram" p1 "so there was a plane but a hologram so why didnt it show up in the other footage" p2 "because there was no plane" p1"so whats this plane then" p2 "thats an hologram" p1 "but theres no hologram in this footage" p2 "thats because there was no plane".
it seems hologram/no plane can be used to cover every arguement thrown against it, but if one is true the other isnt thats the problem im having here. was it NOplanes or hologram? hologram will show up on film, no plane wont show up on film, YOU CARNT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject:
Quote:
was it NOplanes or hologram? hologram will show up on film, no plane wont show up on film, YOU CARNT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
...and make an argument persuasive to anyone else but yourself Prole
I'm fairly sure Tony Gosling will read this thread but I'm far from sure what he will make of your arguments on it: I dont see anything for Tony to personally answer to though. If your going to make a thread addressed to a specific person again, I suggest preparing your argument more carefully beforehand, or be prepared to have it moved down to CC
Still, as a Boxing day wander through the wonders of the Naudet film, I suppose it's been entertaining _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject:
John White wrote:
Quote:
was it NOplanes or hologram? hologram will show up on film, no plane wont show up on film, YOU CARNT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
...and make an argument persuasive to anyone else but yourself Prole
I'm fairly sure Tony Gosling will read this thread but I'm far from sure what he will make of your arguments on it: I dont see anything for Tony to personally answer to though. If your going to make a thread addressed to a specific person again, I suggest preparing your argument more carefully beforehand, or be prepared to have it moved down to CC
Still, as a Boxing day wander through the wonders of the Naudet film, I suppose it's been entertaining
I have nothing to prove, ask of or say to Sir Tony. Although, I do wonder what he is smoking in that mighty pipe of his. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
now you've changed the subject to the second impact. again it proves nothing, show me a closer piece of footage that shows no plane at all.
and you still cannot decide to state if you believe they were using holograms or no planes at all. you seem to use both to explain no plane being seen and a plane being seen.
one minute no plane the next: p1 "look a plane" p2 "no it was a hologram" p1 "so there was a plane but a hologram so why didnt it show up in the other footage" p2 "because there was no plane" p1"so whats this plane then" p2 "thats an hologram" p1 "but theres no hologram in this footage" p2 "thats because there was no plane".
it seems hologram/no plane can be used to cover every arguement thrown against it, but if one is true the other isnt thats the problem im having here. was it NOplanes or hologram? hologram will show up on film, no plane wont show up on film, YOU CARNT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Aarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Christ, Im gonna throw myself and this computer out of the fukking window in a minute!!!!!
I am saying as I have always said that it is a fukking missile cloaked in a hologram! I mean, am I inadvertently writing in Japanese or something?
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Do you understand now? _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Link _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
[size=18]Aarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Christ, Im gonna throw myself and this computer out of the fukking window in a minute!!!!!
Well, if the computer goes out of a 10th floor window, and you just flop harmlessly out of a ground floor window, then the world will be a better place. Maybe a mild bump on the head will do you some good. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
the Naudet Brothers documentary so it is filmed on a professional camera
There is nothing in the quality of the images captured by the Naudets to suggest 'professional' equipment was (your claim). The quality is poor.
I am asking you how you know professional equipment was used? You keep dancing around this issue because you know you have made a claim you are unable to substantiate. _________________ 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
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:18 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
I am asking how who know this?
prole art threat said;
Quote:
the Naudet Brothers documentary so it is filmed on a professional camera
There is nothing in the quality of the images captured by the Naudets to suggest 'professional' equipment was (your claim). The quality is poor.
I am asking you how you know professional equipment was used? You keep dancing around this issue because you know you have made a claim you are unable to substantiate.
Answer my question, have you actually seen the full documentary? _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:25 am Post subject:
THERE ARE NO PLANES! THERE ARE BLOBS! BUT NO PLANES! GET IT? WHY IS THERE PEOPLE SAYING THEY SAW NO PLANES! THEY ARENT HARD TO SEE. PLANES IN THE SKY ARE USUALLY EASY TO POINT OUT.
"DERR. I CANT SEE A PLANE BUT I FINK IT IS ONE. I COULDNT SEE A PLANE AT,,,DER....AT THE PENTAGON,,,THAT MUST BE A MISSILE...ER YEAH...ER BUT THAT FIRST BLOB I RECKONS A PLANE COS THAT IS WHAT THEY TOLD ME ON THE TELLY...DER"
SILLY BUGGERS. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:33 am Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
prole art threat wrote:
[size=18]Aarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Christ, Im gonna throw myself and this computer out of the fukking window in a minute!!!!!
Well, if the computer goes out of a 10th floor window, and you just flop harmlessly out of a ground floor window, then the world will be a better place. Maybe a mild bump on the head will do you some good.
And this, coming from a supreme nutcase who stlill clings to the official story. It's more than a mild bump on the head you need to bring you into the real world. It's a full frontal lobotomy that is your only chance of seeing things beyond what a zionist controlled media jizzes out at you.
I even bet your head is the same shape as a fukking television, you loony tune. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
now you've changed the subject to the second impact. again it proves nothing, show me a closer piece of footage that shows no plane at all.
and you still cannot decide to state if you believe they were using holograms or no planes at all. you seem to use both to explain no plane being seen and a plane being seen.
one minute no plane the next: p1 "look a plane" p2 "no it was a hologram" p1 "so there was a plane but a hologram so why didnt it show up in the other footage" p2 "because there was no plane" p1"so whats this plane then" p2 "thats an hologram" p1 "but theres no hologram in this footage" p2 "thats because there was no plane".
it seems hologram/no plane can be used to cover every arguement thrown against it, but if one is true the other isnt thats the problem im having here. was it NOplanes or hologram? hologram will show up on film, no plane wont show up on film, YOU CARNT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Aarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Christ, Im gonna throw myself and this computer out of the fukking window in a minute!!!!!
I am saying as I have always said that it is a fukking missile cloaked in a hologram! I mean, am I inadvertently writing in Japanese or something?
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Missile cloaked in a hologram
Do you understand now?
at last, so some of the things you linked go against your missle/cloaked in plane theory as they show nothing! how does a piece of film that shows no plane no missle and no hologram prove anything?
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:34 am Post subject:
Marky, are you going out of your way to send me round the bend? Whatever drugs you are taking, please stop or alternatively find yourself another dealer.
Please post up evidence now of no planes, no holograms and no missiles. Please find all these clips I have posted and post them again or just quote them, whatever.
Im going to bed to dream of a 9/11 free world, where the towers still stand and I get my life back.
Oh dear, waking life becomes more painful by the minute on here. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Marky, the couple in the video claim to see a rocket.
Are we watching the same piece of footage?
The initial claim at 00:24 is that is was a bomb – they then go on to speculate about other possible causes. Why would 'a bomb' be mentioned if they saw a rocket?
This is because at the distance they were from the WTC, the plane simply was too far away to see.
You simply make things up to suit. _________________ 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
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:58 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
prole art threat wrote:
Marky, the couple in the video claim to see a rocket.
Are we watching the same piece of footage?
The initial claim at 00:24 is that is was a bomb – they then go on to speculate about other possible causes. Why would 'a bomb' be mentioned if they saw a rocket?
This is because at the distance they were from the WTC, the plane simply was too far away to see.
You simply make things up to suit.
Listen you, refer to the footage I have posted links to that demonstate how two people with their eyes fixed on the North Tower DIDNT SEE A PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
_________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:05 am Post subject:
Listen to the reporter!
Link _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Marky, the couple in the video claim to see a rocket.
Are we watching the same piece of footage?
The initial claim at 00:24 is that is was a bomb – they then go on to speculate about other possible causes. Why would 'a bomb' be mentioned if they saw a rocket?
This is because at the distance they were from the WTC, the plane simply was too far away to see.
You simply make things up to suit.
Listen you, refer to the footage I have posted links to that demonstate how two people with their eyes fixed on the North Tower DIDNT SEE A PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER.
The answer is easy-peasy.
The footage shows a range of magnifications. Why would they be looking off to the left when the burning tower is the subject of scrutiny? The sound of the aircraft's engines would not have reached them because of the distance involved, so what would attract their attention? How many times have you missed something, even that sitting in your peripheral vision? There was no reason to pick up a tiny dot travelling at hundreds of miles an hour - you know it is coming now - but you wouldn't then.
You keep making claim after claim that when trashed you simply ignore. You said they saw a rocket - they never said that - you fail to acknowledge that fact in favour of more waffle. _________________ 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
Last edited by telecasterisation on Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:13 am; edited 1 time in total
The reporter CLEARLY says the second plane was outside his view.
If you listen, you can also plainly hear the traffic in the background of the audio - the reporter was on the ground not in the helicopter taking the video. You would not hear the traffic in a hovering helicopter.
Trashed.
Next? _________________ 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
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:20 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
You keep making claim after claim that when trashed you simply ignore. You said they saw a rocket - they never said that - you fail to acknowledge that fact in favour of more waffle.
Are you deaf or docile or BOTH? Go back to the footage and you will hear the male say "It was like a rocket or something" at 1.10 seconds
Link _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
You keep making claim after claim that when trashed you simply ignore. You said they saw a rocket - they never said that - you fail to acknowledge that fact in favour of more waffle.
Are you deaf or docile or BOTH? Go back to the footage and you will hear the male say "It was like a rocket or something" at 1.10 seconds
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
