CONS: Exposing The Fraud of the "No Plane Theory" -- Conspiracy Fakery

page: 1
105
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+78 more 
posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I've often contended in this older thread and in this newer thread that the "no plane" theory (or NPT) is a fraudulent contrivance from one minor "faction" of the so-called "truth movement."

One of the most serious problems with every single video produced by this "NPT cult/sect" is that their productions are not based on high-quality original video footage. I've often asked for one, just one "No Plane" video that is not based on poor quality YouTube source material -- so far, no one has stepped up to respond.

I've done my best to explain the problems related to using compressed digital streaming video (YouTube) and how it cannot be relied upon for visual accuracy of any sort. Unfortunately, the "true believers" of the no-plane religion are not able to fathom logic, nor the technological realities of the medium in which they function.

"matrixNIN11", a proponent of the no-plane idea, offered one video as the best-case example of the no-plane hypothesis. I've contended that the video is poorly composed of low-quality source material and the creator has purposefully made the images worse to prove his point.
The link to the YouTube video in question is here: 911 AMATEUR part2.

One would assume that if someone is to create an evidentiary video documentary, one would seek out the best-possible source material. We often see the "claims" that the material simply isn't available, or that requests have been rejected. I say that's a lie. I've spent $175.00 to have access to a best-resolution DVD of the Naudet footage. I found several footage catalogs that have this and similar 9/11 material without any difficulty. I digitized the footage at 720p via a double-pass process with medium de-interlacing at 29.97 frames per second for maximum quality. Now, let us compare.



Here is an excellent example of what can happen when you convert a streaming, compressed digital video (from a source such as YouTube) into a consumer-level desktop computer video editing program. The top image shows the typical ghosting which results from the editing software attempting to create (via tweening or interpolation) new frames to accommodate a slow-motion effect. Below is the same frame from the video I digitized with greatly improved clarity.



Here we can see the first verifiable clues that the author of the YouTube video is either intentionally blurring his source material to make his points, or intentionally blurring his source material to hide the heavy pixelization of the YouTube source. Either way, the author is modifying the source material without telling you that it has been modified.



Here the author is attempting to convince you that a secondary explosion is occurring high up (perhaps on the restaurant level) on the building. In the heavily blurred environment of his altered video, the puff of smoke looks indistinct and potentially larger than the comparatively distinct and small puff seen in the higher quality version below. I'm not sure what a "smoke puff" high up on a building immediately after a high-speed impact from a heavy jet is supposed to prove -- other than impact from a heavy jet at high-speed. However, the purposeful blurring and contrast adjustment is supposed to help us think it may be something criminal.



Another excellent example of the horrible quality video in the hands of someone that doesn't care about quality. In the higher resolution video (of which we see a still here), we can see that the south-side fireball has directionality that is consistent with some of the aircraft and fuel being ejected through the south-side, much as it was with the second aircraft that struck the south tower (and north-side eject).



It's only a "very odd shape" when you blur and adjust the contrast of the source.



It only "seems to be transparent" when you blur and adjust the contrast of the source.



Here we see perhaps the most convincing example of the difference one sees between a horrid quality YouTube video, and a properly digitized high-resolution source video. In this case, the no-plane proponent is attempting to take advantage of the terrible quality to convince you that the gash extends to the western edge of the north-side. In reality, as we can see by the enhancement below, it's not the same plane as the aircraft wings, and is clearly an entire floor of burned windows.




Now we seen an excellent example of "enhancement" in order to prove a fabricated point. The no-plane proponent has altered the aspect ratio, brightness, contrast, and blur of his video to help prove a point that is, well, unknown. More fireballs among larger fireballs -- I'm not sure what he is attempting to prove, but it's clear he altered the source in an effort to prove it.

An additional, more distinct frame decreases the apparent impact of whatever point he's attempting to make.



Before the horizontal gash along the floor of impact appears, the no-plane proponent has applied his highest-yet level of blur and obfuscation to create an incredible visual lie.



I suppose if you blur and adjust the values of any image enough, you can end up seeing what you want to see -- or end up presenting what you want people to believe.


And finally below is the impact sequence, reduced to 10 frames per second, scaled to 400% (without pixel-blurring), then exported as a maximum-quality Flash video with 10 key frames per second.

(click to open player in new window)




These are the techniques used by all the no-plane theory proponents. Rely on horrible video, blur it beyond recognition, and jack-up the values until it resembles the lie they're perpetuating.

If these, or any other proponent of unusual events on 9/11, are really serious and not simply looking to attract attention through sensationalism, they would spend the amazingly modest amount of money to obtain high-quality source material. But they don't. And it's for a reason.




posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


Thanks mister.old.school for this excellent presentation.


Of course this whole NPT business has been nonsense to those of us who were there in person on that day and watched United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

No amount of digital trickery will ever erase those images.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Most people ignore the no planers like I do. I know people that were there and I saw live the second plane hit so it kinda makes the no planers way way way out there in need of fresh meds or something. I have no real grasp where they are coming from at all.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Thank you for this work which you have put on the table.

NPT on wtc1/2 drives me nuts. It's very hard to disprove that there were planes there with the footage available. You have just shown a large number of glaring holes in NPT. Enough to safely put it to rest for me anyway.

The pentacon, however.. is another story



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Thank you, mister.old.school, for shelling out the money for the high-quality version of the Naudet video that we've been hounding the no-planers to cough up themselves. We've already proven every single claim of theirs false in their threads and this thread just seals the deal.

To be honest, though, they will never be satisfied. Like debunkers, no matter how much evidence you throw at the no-planers, they will never believe facts. And I'm quite sure they'll be along to "debunk" this thread as well. They'll find something to fault the images and videos above and exploit it.

More and more people are starting to think that the no-plane at the WTC disinfo was started deliberately to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. This is seeming more likely.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I don't think this was a good debunk. It didn't convince me either way. I'm still not convinced that's a 767 in that video. In the embedded video, it still looks dodgy.

Edit: The title is misleading. If this was a good debunk, this thread would only have exposed 911 AMATEUR part2 as a fraud.



[edit on 26-4-2009 by screwedagain]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by screwedagain
In the embedded video, it still looks dodgy.

Can you explain what it is about the video you feel is "dodgy"?



If this was a good debunk, this thread would only have exposed 911 AMATEUR part2 as a fraud.

The same techniques --
shoddy source material
shoddy video editing
image manipulation
deceptive descriptions
-- are used by all "no plane" videos. This particular video was offered as the "best example" by a proponent of the fraud.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Let's agree something flew in there.
But it simply doesn't explain the perfect implosion of both towers as well as the 7 building, down to its basement.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


Thanks mister.old.school for this excellent presentation.


Of course this whole NPT business has been nonsense to those of us who were there in person on that day and watched United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

No amount of digital trickery will ever erase those images.


You mean, people who saw holograms, who believed they witnesssed airplanes that cannot fly into and penetrate a steel building????



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Thank you, mister.old.school, for shelling out the money for the high-quality version of the Naudet video that we've been hounding the no-planers to cough up themselves. We've already proven every single claim of theirs false in their threads and this thread just seals the deal.

To be honest, though, they will never be satisfied. Like debunkers, no matter how much evidence you throw at the no-planers, they will never believe facts. And I'm quite sure they'll be along to "debunk" this thread as well. They'll find something to fault the images and videos above and exploit it.

More and more people are starting to think that the no-plane at the WTC disinfo was started deliberately to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. This is seeming more likely.


Sorry, planehugger, but the 911 Truth Movement was created to distract people from knowing about TV Fakery. CNN and NBC and News media LIED to the people, and so are you.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Hey Mister Old School b.s.,
If you want to debunk something, start with the page on freedomdomain.com called "911 Revisited".
I challenge you to debunk that page, bit by bit. Take each part of the argument and dissect it, break it down for us, and show us the light. Or show us the truth about your darkness. It's up to you.

Planehugger!

[edit on 26-4-2009 by infoliberator]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoliberator
Sorry, planehugger,

"Planehugger"?

Is that an insult, an ad-hominem attack, or both?




CNN and NBC and News media LIED to the people, and so are you.

Do you have any commentary on the material I presented, or are you just going to engage in childish insults?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I think you miss the point with this thread. I've seen several 'no-plane' arguments and they don't even use this particular video. There are more convincing arguments for this theory than this. However, if you are trying to make the argument that the WTC attack was indeed the work of foreign terrorists I suggest you will need to do a lot more work. If you are just attempting to debunk this claim then I suggest that it probably won't change anything. Tell us what your overall goal is.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The still framesof the secondary explosion o matter howclear you make them are irrelivent.

You have to watch the video, as those explosions occure a good deal after the initial "explosion". So those picture comparisons are pointlesson that one.

The explosion at the top of the tower, you actually, do the opposite of debunking it, by showing how it is clearly a seperate event. Thanks for that.

South side explosion, dodgy on you tube, but in your screen cap, clearly a seperate event as its a fireball, some 25-30 stories below the impact. Again thanks for clearing that up better as well.

The black smudge drawn in again, you clearer photo only proves it's suspicious even more, beause it's not, there, then (if you watch the video,you see it gets painted in.) I expected it to be there in your Screen cap, but it's clearly not.

So thanks for the clearer pictures, it only leads me to believe it was a military jet loaded with exotic weaponry, descibed by many witnesses, prolly more if the MSM wasn't handpicking witnesses, and inserting thier own, as a windowless plan, no logos.

They say a picture tells a thousand stories, well a video tells 1 million. I'd love for you to upload the above screenshots in short video form from your clearer copy.

Anyhow thanks for the hard work, and solidifying my sneaking suspicions that there may have been something wrong with the "planes" that hit the trade Towers. Npt, I'm not quite ready to go that far. But a different plane than whats claimed in the 9/11 commision, as well as multiple explosions, I'm getting more and more convince by this after watching hours upon hours of video.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoliberator
You mean, people who saw holograms, who believed they witnesssed airplanes that cannot fly into and penetrate a steel building????


I'm trying to figure out your angle here, lest I become enraged at your disgraceful disrespect for all the lives that were lost on that day, many of which were those of my friends.

I have no problem with anyone pursuing what they believe is the truth behind the events of that day, one thing I can assure you of, it was NO hologram.

Remarks such as those make your mission here seem dubious at best, suspect at worse.

This will be my first and only response to you.


Edit for sp.

[edit on 27 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by baboo
Tell us what your overall goal is.

Something very simple, yet clearly foreign to the conspiracy con-artists who promote this theory -- truth.

As I mentioned, the original YouTube video was promoted by a proponent of the no-plane theory as a best-example. I had promised to obtain the high-quality original footage to engage in a detailed comparison. I lived up to my promise.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoliberator
I'm seriously SICK of people shoving the lies down everyone's throat and calling people No-Planers and ridiculing them, and trying to debunk them. It's pretty obvious to me that the disinfo agents are the ones who spread lies trying to discredit the "No-Planers".

Do you any specific comments on the detailed analysis I've provided, or are you simply going to continue tossing insults as if I were someone refuting your religion?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
You have to watch the video, as those explosions occure a good deal after the initial "explosion". So those picture comparisons are pointlesson that one.

Not at all. The comparisons are exceptionally valuable in that the pattern of deceptive editing, image manipulation, and less-than-sufficient source video are exposed.



a fireball, some 25-30 stories below the impact.

Which also occurred, on the north-side, when the second plan struck the south tower.



The black smudge drawn in again, you clearer photo only proves it's suspicious even more, beause it's not, there,

If you refuse to believe that an intense fire on the floor will break and darken a row of windows, then there is nothing I can do for you.





top topics
 
105
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join