Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: Where is the Plane?
Where is the plane?
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
Where is the plane? Are you sure you have the correct link, the plane is as clear as in every other copy of this??
_________________ 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: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Where is the plane? Are you sure you have the correct link, the plane is as clear as in every other copy of this??
That's not a plane, it's a * blur. _________________ '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: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Where is the plane? Are you sure you have the correct link, the plane is as clear as in every other copy of this??
I actually cant believe you have put a ring around that. Remember this is a clip from the Naudet Brothers documentary so it is filmed on a professional camera. Look at it, just look at it! _________________ '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
Where is the plane? Are you sure you have the correct link, the plane is as clear as in every other copy of this??
I actually cant believe you have put a ring around that. Remember this is a clip from the Naudet Brothers documentary so it is filmed on a professional camera. Look at it, just look at it!
Yes, but we are not looking a first generation image - this has been copied and pumped out over the internet, not to mention it is a selective enlargement of a tiny portion of the frame taken from perhaps a mile away from the subject.
What model of professional camera was it and what format was it shot on? Was it tripod mounted or hand-held? _________________ 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: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject:
[quote="telecasterisation"]
prole art threat wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
Where is the plane? Are you sure you have the correct link, the plane is as clear as in every other copy of this??
I actually cant believe you have put a ring around that. Remember this is a clip from the Naudet Brothers documentary so it is filmed on a professional camera. Look at it, just look at it!
Yes, but we are not looking a first generation image - this has been copied and pumped out over the internet, not to mention it is a selective enlargement of a tiny portion of the frame taken from perhaps a mile away from the subject.
What model of professional camera was it and what format was it shot on? Was it tripod mounted or hand-held?
Mate, you have put your circle around a fuzzy blob. It aint a plane. It was a professional camera. Cameras capture things that are moving. That is not a plane. He was following it with his camera. There is no plane there. Look at that 'blob' in cintrast with the building. Come on, lets get this show on the road! _________________ '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: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject:
Look, contrast the aerial with that blob. Come on, nevermind what the likes of Tony Gosling tell you, there is NO PLANE in that footage! There never has been. _________________ '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: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject:
This clip was not released to the world until we had the 'impact' of the south tower burned into our minds, over and over and over and over and over again. When we finally got around to seeing this video our subconsciously traumatized, thus highly susceptible, minds created another plane. Step out of the plane matrix, step out of their pantomime and start 'seeing' this clip on your own terms. _________________ '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
i thought they were holograms? well i mean i thought you said they were using holograms. if so why would there be no plane on the film? does that mean you dont believe in holograms as according to you there is clearly no plane/hologram to be seen.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:20 am Post subject:
prole art threat wrote:
This clip was not released to the world until we had the 'impact' of the south tower burned into our minds, over and over and over and over and over again. When we finally got around to seeing this video our subconsciously traumatized, thus highly susceptible, minds created another plane. Step out of the plane matrix, step out of their pantomime and start 'seeing' this clip on your own terms.
The clip was released to the world on the same day as the attack, it was shown on the 9pm news over here, and probably a lot earlier on the 24 hour news channels. As the Naudet brothers were film-makers and not linked to any news network, you wouldn't really expect the footage to be televised almost instantaneously would you?
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:00 am Post subject: plane u say?
The only way that I can see a 'plane' in that shot, helpful circles or no, is if I really, really want to see one. That is to say that I may wish for the approval of my 'peers', who may be able to see the 'plane' without any form of prompting, and therefore I may wish to go along with them out of fear of ridicule or somesuch. Even if the 'plane' has 'no clothes on'.
Few people, I wager, would express certainty about the possibility of that blob being a full-sized passenger plane aqbout to hit the building at - what was it?? 500mph, I hear - had they not been primed, pumped and force fed this idea by the MSM in the hours that followed the 'attack'.
But if it were 'arranged' for the Naudet Bros to be there & part of the conspiracy, why did those that went to such extraordinary lengths creating holograms create an indistinct blob that apparently proves to you there wasn't a plane?
Whereas a film crew conducting up close interview not getting a well focused shot of a sudden distant object is apparently implausible.
Given the huge concentration of people in New York, it's not that much of a coincidence that a couple of people caught it on camera. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
ok there is a blob in the footage can anyone prove it was'nt a plane? and if the naudet brothers were meant to be there and are a part of the cover up, why would they film inside the towers knowing what was about to go down. even if you knew when the towers would go down you'd still be putting you life at risk from falling debris.
also some of the naudet brothers footage shows some points to argue an inside job, why didnt they just edit it out if they were covering up an inside job and paid to be there to catch the first plane? afterall they must of edited the blob in the footage above why leave in the firemen saying it looked like a CD and the shattered lobby?
also can someone please explain what is being suggested with the footage above. im getting mega confused are NPT'S saying there was NO plane and the blob was edited in ? if so what the hell is the hologram stuff about? one mintue there was nothing there and they implanted the image in our heads then edited the film, then the next minute there were holograms thats why we saw a plane you car'nt have no plane and holograms at the same time surely.
I have had a look on your web site - why are you selling dvds for £10 when Andrew Johnson is selling them for 20 pence - shame on you
I sell them at 40p each + 60 pence P & P. Tony may use more expensive packaging - I just use the basic clear plastic pocket/wallet things.
And not everyone thinks holograms were used. It's a bit tiresome when people go on about this as if it's the only thing that matters. _________________ Andrew
But if it were 'arranged' for the Naudet Bros to be there & part of the conspiracy, why did those that went to such extraordinary lengths creating holograms create an indistinct blob that apparently proves to you there wasn't a plane?
Whereas a film crew conducting up close interview not getting a well focused shot of a sudden distant object is apparently implausible.
Given the huge concentration of people in New York, it's not that much of a coincidence that a couple of people caught it on camera.
I couldn't agree more. TTWSU3, Prole - you'll never convince me (or anyone else "with half a brain", I suspect) with something like this. How can you imagine it would?
The only somewhat remarkable thing about it is that it has apparently helped convince you of what is to me, taken in the context of all the genuinely verifiable issues surrounding 9/11, an essentially irrelevant point which serves little purpose beyond dividing those who demand further investigation of 9/11, and alienating their potential support.
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:35 am Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
ok there is a blob in the footage can anyone prove it was'nt a plane? and if the naudet brothers were meant to be there and are a part of the cover up, why would they film inside the towers knowing what was about to go down. even if you knew when the towers would go down you'd still be putting you life at risk from falling debris.
also some of the naudet brothers footage shows some points to argue an inside job, why didnt they just edit it out if they were covering up an inside job and paid to be there to catch the first plane? afterall they must of edited the blob in the footage above why leave in the firemen saying it looked like a CD and the shattered lobby?
also can someone please explain what is being suggested with the footage above. im getting mega confused are NPT'S saying there was NO plane and the blob was edited in ? if so what the hell is the hologram stuff about? one mintue there was nothing there and they implanted the image in our heads then edited the film, then the next minute there were holograms thats why we saw a plane you car'nt have no plane and holograms at the same time surely.
LOOK. WHRE IS THE PLANE ON THAT CLIP. WHERE IS IT? NEVERMIND THE GOBLEDY GOOK. WHERE IS THE PLANE. THAT IS NOT A PLANE. GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD. NEVERMIND GABBA GABBA YADDA YADDA YADDA. I ASK YOU TO POINT OUT A PLANE. I ASK YOU ONE QUESTION AND YOU DONT ANSWER MINE BUT COME BACK WITH 50 UNANSWERABLE ONES.
MARKY, WHERE IS THE PLANE? _________________ '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 11:37 am Post subject: Re: Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Gosling?
Ignatz wrote:
When discussing "missile from plane" theory, clearer shots are shown (do holograms cast shadows?) :
No, but fukking missiles do. _________________ '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. _________________ '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
Last edited by prole art threat on Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:47 am Post subject:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
John White wrote:
The Plane is on the film
Seems easy enougth, glad to help
Your not helping anyone with those comments
Hmm, well I'm not helping you perhaps: but I can't be all things to all men y'know
Quote:
Anyone with half a brain would know that the Naudet Brothers were not there just by accident - Just another coincidence --DON'T THINK SO
So? Whatever foreknowledge the Naudets may or may not have had has no bearing on whether or not their footage shows a Plane. You want to promote acceptance of the POV that this footage shows nothing at all , becuase "there was no Plane!": therefore you want me to consider the Naudets had foreknowledge of ...nothing: just becuase your ego is telling YOU "it must be so" (and this based on Zero evidence for the Naudet's complicity, only supposition)
Well, it does show a fast moving airborne object hitting the North tower: so I am unmoved by you call for me to get "further down with reality"
Of course, this deliberately smudged and fudged copy doesnt cleary show very much, including the WTC Towers themselves. Am I to conclude they have been faked and inserted into the shot because the resolution is low?
So if a few degraded frames of digital imaging was taken on its own, I suppose it could be used to ask: "Is this a plane or a missile?": fortunately we have lots of corrobrating evidence of a plane, like debris scattered over lower manhatten, multiple images from other angles, eyewitness testomonies, and the plane shaped holes in the buildings
Quote:
WISE UP GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
If only you knew how to start yourself. I'm not expecting any improvement from you in 2007 I'm sorry to say _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:54 am Post subject:
John, I will tell you why there is a smudge on it and it's not about anybody tampering with it. It's about the fact that this was a major psy-op and it was a test to see how we all can be tricked and manipulated. There are so may big holes in this whole story and we have just found another.
It's not there and it never was there. The PTB are playing mind games with us on a universal level. _________________ '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 12:02 pm Post subject:
If you all think about it, using remote controlled planes is an acceptable theory, whilst using missiles cloaked in holograms and even crappy looking holograms for the first is not acceptable given the technology we are privv too. They are still one step ahead of the game even though we think we have sussed them. They are still one step ahead and I predict even more games being pulled out of their little bag of tricks. _________________ '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: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject:
prole art threat wrote:
John, I will tell you why there is a smudge on it and it's not about anybody tampering with it. It's about the fact that this was a major psy-op and it was a test to see how we all can be tricked and manipulated. There are so may big holes in this whole story and we have just found another.
It's not there and it never was there. The PTB are playing mind games with us on a universal level.
Look, its fairly easy prole: I go to google and type "Naudet film High Resolution"
A full quality still immediately prior to imapct showing a flying object with wings, that it's entirely reasonable to call a PLANE
Now I'm resigned to the fact that this post alone is going to make no difference, and that for months and months to come I'm going to be reading posts from people telling me "there is no Plane" or "the Naudet brothers film shows a missile", but when I go to the source material, I find the image of a Plane on a collision course with the WTC. And people will also be teling me that this image and every other image, is a CGI fake.
But you see, I don't let other people tell me what to think, and I do my own checking out which only takes a little common sense and a modicum of patience before forming a conclusion
Which image do you prefer to base your considered opinion on?
The low res knock-off on You Tube or the high res still from the original film?
Of course one can reject all images as suspect, but then one has to deal with, rather than ignore, the massive logistical problems of acheiving that aim. From my POV, there's not a great deal of difference between the type of thinking shown to uncritically support the varient "No Plane" theory's and happy-clappy religous fundamentalism: unlike the far more credible suggestion that genuine footage can easily be doctored to "make it appear" fake, and be somewhat convincing when people arn't considering the larger ramifications of that scenario _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
You are under the impression that the equipment used was 'professional' capable of capturing high resolution footage. I asked you for camera type and format earlier in the thread, you declined. You merely assumed what was being used - it could easily be a high st format like domestic hi-8.
The aircraft will unquestionably be rendered as a 'blob' given the fact it has been magnified considerably, captured from a distance and the medium we are using does not lend itself to bitingly sharp moving images.
You quote the contrast of the spire and compare it - the spire was stationary - the aircrat travelling at hundreds of miles an hour = bad comparison.
Everyone can see the aircraft, even you. _________________ 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 1:35 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Prole;
You are under the impression that the equipment used was 'professional' capable of capturing high resolution footage. I asked you for camera type and format earlier in the thread, you declined. You merely assumed what was being used - it could easily be a high st format like domestic hi-8.
The aircraft will unquestionably be rendered as a 'blob' given the fact it has been magnified considerably, captured from a distance and the medium we are using does not lend itself to bitingly sharp moving images.
You quote the contrast of the spire and compare it - the spire was stationary - the aircrat travelling at hundreds of miles an hour = bad comparison.
Everyone can see the aircraft, even you.
I cannot see an aircraft and neither can you!
How am I supposed to know the format and camera type the Naudet Brothers used? Have you actually seen the Naudet Brothers' documentary? It is a professional documentary made by 'so-called' professional documentary filmmakers. All I want to say to you Tele and the rest of the plane hugging clan is 'Pull your socks up!'. All you are doing is unwittingly playing along with thei game, you are pawns in a big psy-op , there is no plane there. Deal with it. _________________ '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 1:43 pm Post subject:
John, you are allowing people to tell you how to think, you are with the majority on this one. Once again you present us with another image of the first impact and just because the blur has a reddish tint to it this time, youre seeing wings. There is no plane there and I have come to this verdict by myself. There is no plane. _________________ '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: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject:
prole art threat wrote:
John, you are allowing people to tell you how to think, you are with the majority on this one. Once again you present us with another image of the first impact and just because the blur has a reddish tint to it this time, youre seeing wings. There is no plane there and I have come to this verdict by myself. There is no plane.
Well Prole, I did say I didn't expect my post to make a difference
Did you go to the gallery of stills I linked? If you did, you will see that frame 37 is indisputably prior to the impact, and forms a perfect sequence with the preceding and proceding frames. I can only interpret a cylider with equal length protusions as shown in that still one way: but equally, I know that no human being can truly influence how another interprets information: its what free will is all about, after all: which is why you have come to your verdict yourself
Its also worth noting that the majority is NOT always wrong simply by virtue of being a majority: though I consider it likely that it is only a minority of the world's population who has ever seen the Naudet footage, or even heard of it: so which "majority" are we really refereing to? _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
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
you car'nt have no plane and holograms at the same time surely.
