It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wow! YouTube Documentary shows WTC Impact/Explosion and No Plane @ (5:40m) ?!?!

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


The disinfo artists do not care about facts. They always make something up out of thin air to support their disinfo agenda. That's what makes them disinfo artists in the first place.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by thedman
 


The disinfo artists do not care about facts. They always make something up out of thin air to support their disinfo agenda. That's what makes them disinfo artists in the first place.


Bonez,

I am glad you finely have come to terms with the facts that no aluminum wing filled with fuel can penetrate steel beams with out exploding on impact and sending plan parts down the south side wall because every thing else would be disinfo.

Thanks
D.Duck

[edit on 8-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I thought I'd give this thread a week to see if anyone conclusively proved that the explosion without plane video was fake. All I found however, was that the thread got derailed about half a page in by the "plane huggers" who screamed fake first post in, then just voiced their opinions about how anyone who believes the NPT are disinfo agents harming the 9/11 truth movement........ZZzzzz.

Anyway it still hasn't been debunked in my eyes. Id like to know from any CGI guys here just how easy it is to do, and maybe show us an example.

Any takers??



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


Well it's not easy. To CG would have had to be very precise. I am talking exact camera angles and as I stated before motion mapping. If that video I had posted earlier had any relevance there would have been people shooting in the exact locations on that day of that shoot as they were on 9/11. Then of course they could have produced those shots using motion mapping, by in effect having a projectile like in the video I posted then ran in reverse to animate a plane over the projectile. There would be similar shots of planes to get the correct angle or perhaps a 3D animation of the plane using the motion mapping I just described.

Then if this theory was true, on 9/11 who ever coordinated everything would have sent camera men out to those specific locations. They would have had monitors have been told to use onion skinning (transperancy) to match the angles of the original shots extactly by looking at their monitors.

The original keying of the planes of course would have been produced over the previous year. What they would do then is have a ready animated video of the plane that is already keyed and has transperancy for video layer 2. Video layer 1 of course would be the real time shot that was matched to the previous shots one year earlier.

Then they would use a live video mixer and actually do this in real time and have a precise moment worked out in which the broadcast video mixer would actually cue up the planes and mix with the live event in real time, which would also explain any deliberate fade to blacks like the one seen in the video. This would also explain why you can see the airplane enter the building at the same time but not see any damage to the building. So the plane animation would have used a garbage matte. This is sort of similar to keying only it is done manually by adding points instead of keying, similar to using the pen tool in photoshop, you can create maps. When the front end of the plane and even the wings enter the building there is no evidence of any damage to the building until a split second after the plane has allegedly entered the building. Look frame by frame and you will notice that the plane actually appears to be animated and seems to vanish into the building without damaging it at first.

Then there is an explosion. This could have easliy been controlled to appear as if a large object has hit the building. Though it is not easy to predict what the actual physics of a controlled explosion might appear without doing it for real.

So unfortuanately IMO there are a couple ways this theory could be proved or debunked.

1. Analyze the video for any tampering, keying, manipulation etc.
2. Get one cameraman from that day or the possible shoot one year earlier to publicly state that they instructed to shoot this location on this specific day etc.
3. If there were any live web cam video feeds of any of the shooting locations that day or on 9/11 that we would be able to review to verify what techniques they were using, (ie: using a monitor) or at least verify that they were actually there.
4. Any inconsitancies with the live broadcast with actual footage that was taken that day, like clouds in the sky that appeared to be there but were not etc. and a verifiable way of showing that what we saw on live footage was not actually what happened.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 12.21.12
 



Man that was detailed.


What I meant was how easy is it to delete a plane out of a video.

Apologies if thats what you meant. I kinda got lost in your post!!




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 12.21.12
 



Having just reread your post, I should apologize for my off the cuff reply.
Because if it was media manipulation and the NPT is true then your precise detailed explanation would be how it was done.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by thesneakiod]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 12.21.12
 



So would the anchormen/women be watching the same "live footage" as we did?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
No they would have not seen this in reality had it been CG. Some witnesses that day described seeing a missile not a plane. Also I think that in the video of the OP there was a part where there was a cameraman who was asked how he knew where to aim his camera to which he replied he was told that there was a plane .ed for the WTC, so they were in fact anticipating that shot. Problem is proving that the shot was deliberately planned that way.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by 12.21.12
 



What I meant was how easy is it to delete a plane out of a video.



It would be pretty easy but there would likely be evidence of tampering with if it was. Either way we would need to see the original clip in full resolution to study it further.

There is of course station footage that can be obtained from any network. But in this case we would rather find raw amateur footage to compare it to.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
great video, clearly confirms the HOAX of 9/11. PULL HEAD OUT OF ASS WORLD



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by aeroslag
great video, clearly confirms the HOAX of 9/11. PULL HEAD OUT OF ASS WORLD


again, what interesting about the vid is what i said about being easier to INSERT or ADD cgi etc than it is to ERASE especially in Live footage.

and thats not the only vid i've seen now that doesn't have a plane.

I firmly believe now that there was definitely fakery.

however i'm also starting to re-visit the hologram tech theory again which I've dismissed for quite some time due to lack of evidence. Theres some interesting new info beginning to surface worth researching. Jury's still out for the moment though.




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join