New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

page: 13
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Crakeur,

I did say that she could use a more polite approach.

I was just saying that maybe her motivation is to voice her opinion on what she thinks. That doesn't have to mean, she is a dis info agent.

You made it out to be like it was a confirmation she is a dis info agent just because of her opinion.

That didn't make sense.




posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
referring to them as "deceptive vidographers", was a thinly veiled personal attack.

Could you help explain how categorizing the authors of this video, and groups such as "911researchers.com" as deceptive is any different than their constant use of derogatory language such as "shill" for anyone who dare disagree with their position?




Sorry, but the evidence makes it very clear, that the media put us all on but good.

No matter how often you say that, and no matter how earnest your conviction, those of us with critical thinking skills will not simply accept that statement. We have examined the evidence, and draw very different conclusions regarding your theory.


Have you seen these posts, clearly explaining away key components of the "TV Fakery" contrivance?
The source video: 911researchers.com video on YouTube
An important diagram clearly shows what is causing the parallax effect.
A detailed recreation using 3D software

One of the key "evidentiary findings" presented to ATS was the so-called jumping Verazano Bridge. We have clearly explained the cause as a very common effect seen in telephoto video cameras.

And a direct frame comparisons indicate thes perspective changes while thread author claims that the angle is precisely the same (supported through deceptively distorted and scaled-down imagery).

Given these findings, perhaps you now have some understanding as to why the term, "deceptive vidographers", is being used. It's a factual classification.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
And I refuse to accept any longer, a theory that requires me to believe that lightweight aluminum aircraft, can fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings, and the media is somehow now trustworthy.



So then please enlighten us all to what made the holes in the Towers?
If you can't answer that question then you don't have a leg to stand on, and should be very embarrassed for your thinking and ashamed for wasting everyones time. You might not care about time, but time is absolutely the most precious thing there is. I get quite offended when my time is wasted, and I'm sure plently of others do as well.

The towers weren't steel reinforced concrete.

Can you tell me how much Titanium and Depleted Uranium is inside Boeing's?

These are rather elementary dynamics, and if you don't understand them it's completely irrational to make such staunch convictions about the entire ordeal.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



You are right. They weren't mere steel reinforced concrete.

The fact remains, that a lightweight aluminum airplane, could not fly through either tower, in the manner depicted by the CGI footage.

The holes were definitely too small for the 'nose out' the media depicted, and as described by one or two news commentators thusly, ".... and flew right through the building!".

As for that jet engine, well, that was a really lucky shot eh? Missed all the internal structures, punched right on through and wasn't even torn all to pieces. Looked pretty good on the exit there. Wow. Ain't that something. They could never have faked that.

By the way. Spicing up your posts with lots of invectives and such, does not enhance them or make them more credible.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
tell you what, let's get a city of eye witnesses together with you and your wife and you try and explain how not one of us, none of the thousands who stood there watching in horror, saw that plane hit.

you have one of two agendas here. either you are trying to profit on this awful event or you are a disinfo or cointelpro agent of some sort who's sole purpose is to distract the people from the real issues at hand.


I belive there has to come a point in any theory where to test it's truth, it must be proven to be rational. Promoting the idea that thousands of new yorkers and many people on live TV did not see at minimum the second plane hitting the tower..is disrespectful becuase it can be proven as false.

You can't edit hundreds of frames of video in "17 second delay", to recreate the sight of seeing the plane smash into the building. What this new "movement" is trying to claim is beyond reason. Nevermind every video and photo taken from 9/11 matches the story, that planes crashed into WTC 1, and 2.

An even simpler question is why spend billions of dollars hoaxing it, instead of covering it live? Whatever realm of thought you are from, the idea 9/11 "didn't happen" and there are "no planes", can't be proven. I sincerely hope some of you haven't developed demensia from spending to many hours watching the same grainy videos.

What more evidence is needed? You have thousands of witnesses and video proof, saying planes hit the twin towers, what's the debate? It's like trying to prove water doesn't exist. I would also say to research video editing a bit more, this theory doesn't even make sense on a technical level.

I think everyone should just try and come to the relization that certain things must be accepted as fact.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I notice you completely ignored my post earlier. Typical.

Please tell us exactly what SHOULD have happened then. You keep pointing out the "thin aluminum" a plane is made out of. But completely ignore the SIGNIFICANTLY stronger internal structure to point out how thin the SKIN of the plane is. And please tell us how it's possible for steel to stop a 1 kiloton impact force from penetrating through it. That's some steel.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Ive kept my distance from this thread, as the frist time I just read the topic I was like okay, no planes.. sigh.. I just didnt understand that the statement really means that missles hit the WTC? Is that what is being said? Missles really hit the buildings, and where graphic put in the live stream to make it look like planes? Thats my question there.. I took some time to watch the vids the OP put up.. They where very interesting and caught my attention. Sertinly it made me think.. But Im not jumping on any bandwagon until I have more solid answers.. Just no planes isnt enough for most people to even want to be interested in reading..They feel its just more disinfo.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Edit:Mod please take this out, my finger got jumpy and double posted


[edit on 8-6-2007 by zysin5]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Killtown has been peddling WebFairy junk on other 9/11 forum sites for a long time (ex: democraticunderground.com). WebFairy is known to contain obvious fake videos of vanishing planes and other nonsense to support the Hologram theory/delusion. At first, I thought it was amusing but afterwards it becomes a distraction and hindrance towards real 9/11 truth progress. The stuff WebFairy has is waaay out there but sometimes mixed with a dash of truth. I'm surprised to see killtown still peddling this stuff after so many weeks of arguments on another forum. It was definitely a waste of my time and others.

It looks like they removed the crazier stuff but any changes should be archived on www.archive.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Natasha_Thompson

I think you have to understand people are upset because to many of us, denying the planes is like denying that 9/11 ever took place. It happened, it too place, it involved planes. It was a truly tragic day of immense proportions and has changed many of us forever.

Yes there maybe sightings of things that are not there, yes there are strange things we probably can all agree on those.

But here we have something that took place in the morning on a fine Sept day.

We have numerous eyewitnesses to the tragedy. No-one would even plan what the 'no plane' people are thinking, because after the first plane everyone is going to see the second plane because everyone is watching. If there was truly no plane, why would anyone on earth plan it that way?

Its downtown New York City, many people work there, many people live there. People were watching these events unfold from their houses and apartments.

If there were no planes, the RADIO shows that night in New York would be flooded with 'I didn't see a plane', 'the media is lying'.

But the Radio Shows didn't have any of that.

The risk in doing that kind of operation and having it fail would be so great, that no military would do that. The very act of something like that could end the country completely.

One major glitch, a revolt in the city. The military would never even try and attempt that.

There are perfectly reasonable answers to everything I have seen so far, I haven't seen anything in the videos to date that suggests tv fackery going on. I looked at it all and I know what is happening, with Parallax with Zoom Lenses, it just isn't there.

The military can't control every single camera in New York, you would have so many photo's and films of no plane it would come out right away. The very fact that the photo evidence backs up many of the eyewitnesses is sure evidence.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Zaphod58,

Regardless of 911, I think you are over exaggerating how tuff a plane is.

A plane crashes in the ocean or on the ground and the whole thing will be taken apart, it's not like it's a super strong diamond material.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
So you expect me to believe that a steel building can withstand and object weighing nearly 200,000lbs, hitting it with the force of 1 kiloton, and it's NOT going to punch a big hole in it?

I'm not underestimating how strong planes are. I spent MANY years around them, and seeing all kinds of things that most people don't get to see. Of course a plane slamming into something at high speed is going to blow apart, but the object it hits (with the exception of the ocean) has a lot of impact damage as well. When a plane hits the ground it leaves a crater. When it hits a building it leaves a hole. I can cite NUMEROUS crashes where a plane hit buildings, and left MAJOR damage, and huge holes, most of them going MUCH slower than these planes were going. I personally WATCHED a plane hit a unit of 6 houses that were attached, and it went through all of them leaving a big hole.

As talisman keeps pointing out, and having ignored, if a B-25 in the 1940s could impact the Empire State Building, which is CONCRETE AND STEEL, and go COMPLETELY THROUGH IT, then why on earth wouldn't these planes go through a steel building, when they weigh MUCH more, and were traveling well over TWICE the speed of that plane? Please explain this to me.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Conspiracy Fakery: The Deception of "TV Fakery" Conspiracies


In the previous few days, we've been witness to a flood of new topics on "9/11 TV Fakery" from a group calling themselves "911researchers.com". We (ATS) are not the first board of our ilk to be graced with the disruptive trollishness of this group. Members of 911researchers.com who are active in "9/11 discussion groups" combine indignant denigration of disbelievers with disdainful neglect of valid questions that are posed to them.

Yesterday, the spamming of multiple threads and improper behavior from participants of this group prompted an unusual "crack down" within ATS. While there has been no limitations on what may be discussed (just an imposition of respectful manners), members of this group immediately cried "censorship" and refuse to participate further. This is unfortunate, as a multitude of questions remain that cast a deep shadow of serious doubt over both the accuracy and credibility of their efforts.

And before I examine these remaining questions, I believe we who care deeply about discovering the impartial truth of the events of 9/11/2001 must consider the tactics of the 911researchers.com group as an important attribute of their collection of so-called "evidence". These tactics are part of an escalation in the war of theories among competing "Conspiracy Tycoon Groups," or what I will now call, CTG's.

These groups have been "at war" for so long, it's natural for them to toss about words like "shill" or "agent" for anyone who dare disagree with them. The battle of extreme theories and defamatory rhetoric is the cost of entry. Any hope of real truth takes a back stage to garnering attention, at any cost. Some CTG's seek to make a profit from the attention. Others are interested in the attention gained through the cult of personality. And others still are simply interested in the entertainment value of disruption for disruption's sake. No CTG is the least bit interested in productive debate to discern the weaknesses of their theories. Instead, all CTG's seek to wear down opponents (anyone who disagrees) through baseless arguments and denial of logic, reason, and reality.

In the modern history of conspiracy theory research, no one event has harmed the perception or productivity of conspiracy theorists more than that of the rise of "Conspiracy Tycoon Groups".



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Conspiracy Fakery: Specific "TV Fakery" Deception


Listed below, are key posts and questions that comprise the basis of the "TV Fakery" deception from the 911researchers.com CTG.

ABC Live 911 Coverage was Totally Fake
Here is one of the threads, from a member of the 911researchers.com CTG, that proposes a moving distant horizon is proof of a "layer effect" and "TV Fakery". This concept of the "moving Verrazano Narrows bridge is one of the cornerstones of the deceptive "TV Fakery" theory, and falls flat under simple scrutiny.
911researchers.com video on YouTube
Archive.org ABC News video

Most ATS members quickly rejected this theory.
The first member to propose parallax as the cause of the visual effect.
A member noticed deceptive editing in the video presented by 911researchers.com
Another member posts an improved description of the parallax effect.
And we notice the perspective changes are likely to cause the parallax effect.
I mistakenly believe this user is Nico Haupt (who is indeed one of the leaders of 911researchers.com CTG)
The first member to believe this is a hoax due to the deceptive editing and erroneous descriptions of the effect
Nico and his followers are trying to discredit the 9/11 movement and make a mockery of Logic.
An important diagram portrays the relative distances of the objects in question, and clearly shows what is causing the parallax effect.
Another member observes the various subtle clues of perspective and focus changes.
The thread author refuses to accept the extensive work of ATS members
A detailed recreation using 3D software clearly illustrates the parallax effect seen in the video
Serious doubts emerge about the motives of those involved in the 911researchers.com CTG.
The thread author continues to reject the contrary evidence presented by ATS members and threatens those who disagree with him
Direct frame comparisons clearly indicate the perspective changes that cause the parallax, clearly refuting the thread author's claim that the angle is precisely the same (a claim that he attempts to support through deceptively distorted and scaled-down imagery).



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Conspiracy Fakery: Specific "TV Fakery" Deception, continued


New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery
Recently produced videos, September Clues Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four present more deceptively edited video with inaccurate descriptions. This thread also presented the concept that we saw part of the passenger airline nose section emerge from the north side of the South Tower as a result of a CGI error.

No topic is seemingly complete without insulting accusations of shills form the thread author.
The thread author is uninterested in responding to questions about his theories
Despite claims of "independent analysis" the author is unable to provide evidence that any material has been subject to analysis by professionals -- hence, more proof of purposeful deception
The Evan Fairbanks video is used as evidence of TV Fakery, but is easily explained
A deceptively blurred image is presented as evidence
Requests for provenance of the image are ignored
Well, not ignored, but deceptively twisted
The source is located and an analysis reveals that deceptive image processing was used to make the eject look like the nose section of an aircraft. After this, the consensus of most is that the "CGI Nose Section" is a dust cloud being ejected at high pressure because of the explosion inside the building (or perhaps the engine)
A member reminds the "TV Fakery" deceivers that they're relying on unreliably poor quality video for their conclusions
Portions of the video claim color changes show evidence of "TV Fakery" as the plane is dark in one video, but light in another -- it is shown how this is be unreliable and the building itself is also darker in the dark-plane video
The unanswered and ignored questions continue to build
Another key component of the "TV Fakery" in the September videos is a side-by-side comparison of what the video calls "identical angles" and we see the approach aircraft in only one camera. The author of the September deception video is wrong and lying to you again. Here we clearly see that the perspective of the two cameras is very different. It is easy to see how the approaching aircraft might be hidden by the North Tower for one of the cameras.
The WebFairy origins are discussed.




There is a wealth of additional information within these threads, authored by astute members of ATS, that continue to reveal the deceptive nature of the "TV Fakery" concept and its authors.

The message is clear. Purveyors of the "TV Fakery" conspiracy hoax are either "Conspiracy Tycoons" engaged in an escalating battle of attention, or those who have been fooled by the deceptive techniques and are unwitting viral marketers of the hoax.

Using these catastrophic events, where thousands of people died, as a macabre plaything for videographic con-men is the lowest low ever seen in the conspiracy theory genre. And trust me, there have been a multitude of heinous activities, frauds, and hoaxes over the decades.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by mister.old.school]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So you expect me to believe that a steel building can withstand and object weighing nearly 200,000lbs, hitting it with the force of 1 kiloton, and it's NOT going to punch a big hole in it?


I said no such thing, please don't assume......



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So then please enlighten us all to what made the holes in the Towers?
If you can't answer that question then you don't have a leg to stand on,


You are right. They weren't mere steel reinforced concrete.


They were mere steel. Case closed. Steel + concrete + KEVLAR (like at the pentagon) is nastier for something to try to punch thru.


The fact remains, that a lightweight aluminum airplane, could not fly through either tower, in the manner depicted by the CGI footage.


Where is your proof that it couldn't have? Throwing comments about things being facts without proof and on complex 'godspeed' unverifiable issues is absurd.

Anyways you completely dodged my questions and you have absolutely no leg to stand on.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
Zaphod58,

Regardless of 911, I think you are over exaggerating how tuff a plane is.

A plane crashes in the ocean or on the ground and the whole thing will be taken apart, it's not like it's a super strong diamond material.



I think you are underestimating Velocity. www.youtube.com... That gives a better angle to see the force at which the plane impacted. The fact the nose was "appearing" as you say could have a couple explainations. For one the camera angle could have made it appear that the nose "came out the other side".

The footage is viewed as a 2D immage essentially, but in fact those buildings had a 3 dimensional structure. On video we will see it as the most logical reconstructure of a 3d immage, as 2d footage. What we see "appearing" could just be the videos way of rendering the shot from that angle.

However it also could just be the fact that the plane slammed into the building with such force that the nose section remained intact and broke through on the other side. Keep in mind the plane didn't desintegrate immedatley, there were probably some fractions of a second where it was breaking apart and exploding, while still being propelled forward.

Physics and technological science seem to have explained this one.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
You made it out to be like it was a confirmation she is a dis info agent just because of her opinion.



I have no confirmation of this member being anything, other than either delusional to think that thousands of eyewitnesses are mistaking a missile for an airplane, sick for trying to profit on this tragedy or working for someone else and promoting one of the dumbest theories for anything I have ever heard (even dumber than the soul catcher) as a means of distracting the researchers from the real issues.

is there anyone who can say that they might confuse a missile for an airplane? I doubt it. thousands of people making the same mistake? nope

mass ufo sightings or mass unexplained anything are the result of something out of the ordinary being seen. an airplane is one of the most ordinary things we see in the sky. in nyc you see them in the sky as often as you see birds (pigeons spend more time on the ground and there aren't too many other birds flying around).

trying to convince the whole world that they are wrong and 5 people who were not here, did not see this first hand are right is as insane as you can get.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Spawwwn,

Your post is irrelevant with what I was saying.

I was not talking about velocity, I was talking about the material the plane is constructed with.

Of course velocity plays a part. It also plays a part when a bird trashes completely the nose cone or the wings of a plane.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Crakeur,

I can only say one thing to you sir.

Ridiculing theories is not denying ignorance.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join