New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
Chimp since you know everything what is the nose cone again? A column?


Stop deflecting my questions. Do you agree with BS's assertion, from the "fantastic, evidence filled" video he provided, that from two different angles, two different cgi operators screwed up in the same precise way?

I am anxiously awaiting your answer.




posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I am kind of surprised with the amount of people falling for this BS, or at least considering it a possibility. Actually, I take that back. I am not surprised to see this at all on ATS. Lately its been flooded with non-sense.

There is one simple thing that no one seems to realize. There were hundreds of eye witnesses who can attest to seeing a plane hit the WTC. Were they all dillutional? Did FOX and CNN "edit" their vision?

Even if we were to take that out of the equation, this film makes some very important and ultimately unsusbtanciated assumptions.

1. That the material exiting the 2nd tower hit was indeed the nose of the aircraft. I, for the life of me, cant understand how anyone can come to that conclusion based on this footage. Why is it so hard to beleive material from the building shoot out the other end when a large airplane going fullspeed smacks into it?

2. The fade to black segment was nothing more than someone realizing they made a mistake. There is no reason to beleive this unless you beleive assumption number one. Unless better evidence comes into play, there is no reason to beleive the fade to black segment was nothing more than a coincidence. Also, I noticed, when they were comparing two networks at one point, they tried to convince me it can't be a coincidence that both networks would have a fade to black segment at the same time and for the same duration without it being a conspiracy, the two networks were using the same shot or film. So obviuosly it would have the same fade to black segment.

I am curious to see what kind of crap the second part of the film will throw at us.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
piacenza


First of all the first logical step with the nose out could be the planes were simply military jets in disguise. NOW I DON'T believe that, but I am just saying that is a much more viable theory then CGI.

Now again.

Tell me HOW (using YOUR LOGIC-NOT MINE)exactly how do you know 9/11 happened>>?


[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
I'd be interested in your view on this. I have my own thoghts but its far from conclusive.


We are not absolutely certain of the surroundings in the video portrayed here (but see below).

We are also not absolutely certain the object upon which we see a reflection is actually a van.

We are also not absolutely certain the artifact he's pointing to as the "fireball reflection" is not a static protrusion of the radio sitting immediately to the right.

Such are the pitfalls of attempting to analyze heavily-compressed digital video. We cannot and should not draw conclusions from a video in which the compression process introduces new and unpredictable artifacts into the scene. And in addition, it appears as though we're looking at a third-generation compressed video, at best.

Here is one explanation that is plausible --

This supposes the radio is placed on the hood of a car, and the reflection is actually seen in the angled windshield of the car. The man is leaning his elbows on the vehicle front-left fender while the camera man is crouching near the front bumper for visual effect. When you revisit the scene with this in mind, it all makes sense.

It behooves "StillDiggin" to keep digging by obtaining a high-quality version of this video and provide a more reliable analysis.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Chimp you answer me first and I tell you why the nose its in different videos.
What is the nose? can we agree its the nose of the plane?
Or what do you think that might be? Did you watch BS video the pixelation identical to the nosecone of the plane or did you not? Poster above you as well did you actually take the time to watch BS video or not? Can you point me out to the hundreds of witnesses videotaped from that day. I can find tons of them about explosions no planes, missles; but where are the witnesses of a plane hitting the building? Can you post in here those interviews?. How come the family of the ppl that died on those planes are the only one that do accept the OCT? How come they are the only one who settled without making a fuss? How come are they the only one satisfied with the 911 commission report?? HOW COME??
How come the Flights were not scheduled to fly that day? How come they were basically empty? Did you read who the passanger were?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Piacenza-

Well? What is it? Is it a pod? Is it bad cgi operation? You cannot take an ambiguous stance on such an outrageous claim. Why does it have to be a nose cone or a pod? Why can't it be debris in a state of kinetic motion? Conspiracy theorists somehow seem to go from point A to point C without even evaluating point B.

Which is it?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Wrong; it is *not* a 100% match. I caution you to review the analysis. Look at what BS would claim is the "bridge" of the nose. It clearly slopes inward.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.schoolWe are also not absolutely certain the object upon which we see a reflection is actually a van.

Interestingly, this is pretty much what I figured. I thought the monitor hypothesis too bizarre - as if 'they'd' leave that sort of damning evidence in the field of view.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
OK Chimp you can keep living in your fantasy world its probabbly better tahn mine.
Now can you move on with your life and leave this thread alone since you did not contribute one bit.
I guess Newton's third law has no meaning for you for this reason you can live now the discussion. Once you make a valid analisy of the Video feel free to post it I will actually watch it (not like you).



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
piacenza

So again I ask you. USING YOUR LOGIC (NOT MINE) tell me how exactly do you know 9/11 even happened?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
OK Chimp you can keep living in your fantasy world its probabbly better tahn mine.
Now can you move on with your life and leave this thread alone since you did not contribute one bit.
I guess Newton's third law has no meaning for you for this reason you can live now the discussion. Once you make a valid analisy of the Video feel free to post it I will actually watch it (not like you).


Seriously, what are you even talking about? I've watched every single one of the videos; I should not post because I don't agree with anything you or the OP are presenting as fact? Sorry, that isn't the way it works.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimp
Stop deflecting my questions. Do you agree with BS's assertion, from the "fantastic, evidence filled" video he provided, that from two different angles, two different cgi operators screwed up in the same precise way?

I am anxiously awaiting your answer.


Now please; answer my question.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Ok Chimp I will take it slowly so you will understand Look at this picture and tell me can we agree that the nose cone that enters is the same nose cone that exits? YES or NO?





posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
I guess Newton's third law has no meaning for you for this reason you can live now the discussion. Once you make a valid analisy of the Video feel free to post it I will actually watch it (not like you).


I'm intrigued, what has

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Got to do with anything?

As far as I can see, that just gives an explanation as to why a plane hitting a solid object would start to break up as the object does too.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
No, piacenza. Take the excerpt from the actual video and post it here. I'm not denying that it isn't very similar, but it is not 100%, like the author, BS, and you purport. So it's a resounding no from me.

Edit to add: Even from the still you posted, one can easily surmise that it is indeed not the same shape; just because the author added wings and a body to the "plane in the building" image it does not make it so.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by PartChimp]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Check the picture above you already answered your own question.
Now Chimp is it the same object yes or no?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
Ok Chimp I will take it slowly so you will understand Look at this picture and tell me can we agree that the nose cone that enters is the same nose cone that exits? YES or NO?

Are you arguing that the explosions are faked too, or just the nose cone?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I am asking a simple question is the object the same YES or NO? I am not talking about explosion.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza I am not talking about explosion.

If the explosion around the nose cone is real, what is causing it?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I answered you. No. Now answer my question. You honestly believe that two different cgi operators made the same blunder?





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join