Very good video analisy of the nose in nose out footage

Originally posted by mlmijyd
So once again the numbers 9 1 1 appear and we have a thread that's not capable of existing without that stupid "Due to member demand.........." banner?

"Due to member demand, this forum is now under close staff scrutiny"

It's the entire 9/11 "forum" that's monitored, that's why the message appears on every thread within the forum.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ee8919d79ff.jpg[/atsimg]

I use this photo under fair use just to illustrate my point to _BoneZ_ and all other folks that think a plane hit.

This is supposed to be a wheel from flight 175. You can see from its size that it is too big for just one person to life so I would not count on the pedestrians in the background moving it...

You'll note it is on the curb so either when skidding it jumped the curb or just landed right there and stopped.

Problem is the pole its leaning against is not damaged. Not one bit. And their is not markings from where metal and rubber skidded along the road. The rubber tire itself shows no signs of fire damaged. No warping, no melt damage, nothing to suggest it went through a giant fireball.

This next part is the most amazing

After ripping through the building and surviving the fireball , the tire is still intact and inflated. Nothing cut the tire or punctured it. The high pressure from the explosion did not affect it. I reiterate: This tire ripped through a plane and buildings, fell 70 stories, landed in the street, and did not pop and is still fully inflated and neatly attached to its rim.

That is one magical tire!

This is one example of a planted wreckage. The folks in the background might of been too busy to notice, perhaps they were not their originally when it was planted. Who knows? All I know is that the tire in this photo is one special tire.

Do you honestly believe this to be a piece of flight 175?



[edit on 2-8-2009 by titorite]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Simonshack/socialservice deliberately manipulated his footage to peddle a false idea. That is the very definition of a disinfo artist peddling disinfo. The following 2-minute video shows how he did it:

Isn't that a debunked attempt for the original "nose out" video by simonshack and the one I posted is shack's rebuttal to that one you posted? Looks like you are behind the times BoneZ.

reply to post by titorite


Bearing in mind the landing gear was up also, makes this tire even more incredible .

Indeed I must of struck a cord. I would of thought that this photo of landing gear would of garnered the interest of many debunkers around here. I guess the fact that it is an inflated tire must be kind of hard to refute. Hopefully it lends credit to the No Plane argument.

I mean it survived the plane ripping apart, flew through a giant fireball, fell over 70 stories, and STILL did not pop.

That is one amazing tire.

reply to post by titorite

I looked at the picture and thought I saw something......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/386079e6c776.jpg[/atsimg]

So I enlarged the picture and found this, the Bin Laden tape, awesome tire .

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/396beb709937.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Seventh


LOL! Very funny. However I notice that their is pixelization around your insert. Something that can be seen in the Video Fakery and your insert illustrates the point perfectly.

When something is digitally inserted those pixels are self evident, as with the phony planes.

reply to post by titorite


I'm not a debunker Titorite, just have some observations about this photo:

1. For one, it looks far from "intact" to me....... it appears to be a bit burned on the bottom, with numerous tears and even a chunk taken out of one part of it. Agree that it isn't what I'd think a tire that went through all that hell should look like, however it would really depend upon the point at which it parted from the plane.

Something else that occurred to me -- the "pole" the tire is resting against --- I'm pretty certain that's a scaffold....... see the cross-bracing and foot? No telling how tall that scaffolding is, but if it's just a section or two and not much of a load on it, it will easily slide, particulary on a concrete sidewalk. What I just said is proof of nothing, but I just bring it up to illustrate how it could easily sustain very little or no damage. I think it's quite possibly an error to assume that the scaffold stopped a fast-moving airline tire.

reply to post by titorite


It`s a pirate copy also .

Originally posted by ATH911
Isn't that a debunked attempt for the original "nose out" video by simonshack and the one I posted is shack's rebuttal to that one you posted?

It doesn't matter if he "debunked" it or not. He purposely manipulated the video. There's no excuse for that. That is a disinfo artist knowingly producing disinformation, period.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by ATH911
Isn't that a debunked attempt for the original "nose out" video by simonshack and the one I posted is shack's rebuttal to that one you posted?

It doesn't matter if he "debunked" it or not. He purposely manipulated the video. There's no excuse for that. That is a disinfo artist knowingly producing disinformation, period.

Correct. I can't remember where, but there was some damning threads on a U.K truth forum which exposed him completely. It is disinformation.

Originally posted by titorite
This tire ripped through a plane and buildings, fell 70 stories, landed in the street, and did not pop and is still fully inflated

The emphasis above is mine:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8602cd1ae868.jpg[/atsimg]


OMG LOOK!!!! That tire that is so fully inflated must have an invisible force field around that huge gaping hole to hold the air in!

Seriously people, it took me 5 seconds to Google a different angle of that tire.

Is it a mandate of the no-planer cult to purposely do no research and then come make extremely wild claims that are easily debunked? This stuff is truly hilarious. It's no wonders the 9/11 truth movement will never take the no-planers seriously with claims that can be so easily debunked like this.

Originally posted by titorite
When something is digitally inserted those pixels are self evident, as with the phony planes.

Every single internet video you use to claim video fakery is pixelated. Why? because they've been compressed so many times. Get some original footage like I keep saying and then try to prove fakery. I guarantee that you can't prove fakery with hi-def video from the original sources.

Compare those two shots of the tire and it's pretty obvious that the second one was taken after the collapse of the tower(s), it's also been shifted which may have been due to pressure created during collapse, but also in the first image there appears to be no sign of the big tear seen in the second.

Just appears a bit odd to me.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It doesn't matter if he "debunked" it or not.

Oh yes it does. I can see how people who hate a certain claim would say that though. Very reminiscent of a JREF.

He purposely manipulated the video. There's no excuse for that. That is a disinfo artist knowingly producing disinformation, period.

Looks like he just applied filters to it and the shape of the nose cone was a result of the filtering. Are you insinuating he photoshopped it? You better show proof of your slanderous claims.

reply to post by ATH911


To match two images together, you overlay them on top of each other. He made it appear as if he was overlaying two images while really fading one image out. It's all in the video I posted which you obviously didn't view (or understand).

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by ATH911

 

To match two images together, you overlay them on top of each other. He made it appear as if he was overlaying two images while really fading one image out.

Looks like to me he took a frame of the nose in and a frame of the nose out, applied filters to them and then slowly overlaid one frame over the other one to show the outline of the object were virtually identical which proves his CGI theory.

It's all in the video I posted which you obviously didn't view (or understand).

The one from that guy who says he's a truther, but mostly makes videos trying to debunk truthers? You know, kind of like you?

Originally posted by ATH911
The one from that guy who says he's a truther, but mostly makes videos trying to debunk truthers? You know, kind of like you?

You mean a truther debunking a disinfo artist. No 9/11 truth organization supports no planes at the WTC. Nobody in the 9/11 truth movement supports no planes at the WTC. Therefore, those supporting no-planes are not truthers as the truth movement doesn't support the no-planers. Get it?

reply to post by SpaceJockey


I wondered about the perspective a bit with the first photo, but elected to not say anything about it. I could go for days at a time without being slapped with a stupid label, you know?

In the first photo, you can see a little spark of light, which makes it look (to me) like the scaffolding post is farther in the foreground than it appears. Different perspectives, and the first is a tighter and lower shot than the first.

We'll likely never know for certain; that's my take.

[sepillng]

[edit on 3/8/09 by argentus]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


[Johnny Carson voice] I........ did not know that. [voice out]

That's a good thing to know. thank you Bonez.

edit to fiss your name.

[edit on 3/8/09 by argentus]

Really _BoneZ_?

Lets compare our two photo as I address your concerns and others.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d0bd2b01fd5.jpg[/atsimg]

You'll note that this scaffolding is sitting on a wooden block. I have used two red arrows to point out that wooden block. The fact that it is still on its block would suggest that the scaffolding did not suffer from a forceful impact.

Also I have used a blue circle with an x in it to point out the frame of reference. In my photo which was taken before the towers collapse, we can clearly see that their are no cross beams in the back round behind the tire.

Also in my photo we have no orange cones, no dust, and much less "caution tape"...

In your photo BoneZ we can clearly see that rupture damage that is not evident in my photo. From that we can conclude that the tear happened after the impact and after it came to rest and AFTER Mr Marsh took his photo.

Also the dust in your photo obstructs our view of the ground.

The the Photo I provided we can clearly see a lack of marks where metal might of scrapped against concrete or rubber might of burnt against ground. It is clearly not their.

These are two different photos taken of the same object at different times.

Personally I shall stick with the photo taken the earliest before anyone got there to "tamper" with the evidence by moving it or doing other things to it.