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.

 

Please allow 911 truth .....PLEASE!!!!!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Velocity. Ever seen a peice of straw slammed through a telephone intact? It's pretty neat.




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
More senseless thoughtless nonsense.

Nonsense that's easily provable if you have a video camera. But you'd rather believe in disinformation that is untruthful and incorrect instead of getting off your lazy asphalt and trying these things yourself to see if they're provable before you call them fact.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


Quite correct -- neither of us is attacking the other. I enjoy a civilized debate.

You're quite correct VideoWW, in that I do not specialize in video/animation processes. I am, however, a photographer and videographer. Am I professional? Well, no. I do not charge anyone, nor do I intend to make any money for my efforts. The fruits of my labors are reward enough.


If I am facing the WTC and filming, no matter how far back I am, zooming in and out, it will not produce the effect of the land moving across the screen in the background, UNLESS, the perspective of the filming crew ALSO CHANGED


I'm sorry friend, but this is patently not true. You can see it clearly in the video which you last submitted as proof. There is panning back and forth, there is that moment of blurriness where the light-sensing sensors of the cameras focus, and there is focus.

This effect is particularly noticeable when the POV is higher than the background, and the focal point is far in front of it. It is a natural and common by-product of extreme zoom. You and I perhaps cannot afford that amount of optical zoom -- I know I can't.

Digital zoom is even worse, as it incorporates a BUNCH of pixel "noise". Many of the amateur videos of this awful day are taken with a combination of both optical and digital zoom. Most of the professional vids appear to me to use optical zoom.

In either case, the background perspective looks crazy quite naturally, by the use of extreme (beyond 50X) zoom. It just IS, a by-product of magnified light through a lense.

I look forward to watching your future animation. Keep in mind that the background is going to move at a much faster rate than the middle or foreground, when you are animating scenes. That will be consistent with known photographic effects. Please let us know when you have your production together. I'll approach it the same as any other video, neither predisposed toward being in favor or against.

thanks for the reply.

cheers



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Dave, your question is irrelevant and has nothing to do with 911 you are playing a game.


Good grief, you lie like an oriental rug. "When are we going to do a real debate" was YOUR question, not mine. If you're now saying that the question had nothing to do with 9/11 then why did you ask it?


Dave, I have ask you plenty of question and YOU refuse to answer them, why is that Dave?


My being limited to 6400 characters maximum might have a teeny, tiny bit to do with it.


Dave if you want to debate me about 911 you ask a question that you believe is true AND you must show a creditable sources to substantiate your claim. Opinions and assumptions are not aloud in a factual debate.


For the gazillionth and one time- WHAT do you want me to post references for? I'm not a mind reader, guy.


Dave you are still playing your silly little game, are you scared? If you feel I am a waste of your time them put me on ignore and move along.


Why on Earth would I ever be scared? You're only making yourself look bad with all these strange games you're playing, not me. I said it before and I'll say it again- the truth never has to run and hide from falsehoods. It's falsehoods that have to run and hide from the truth.


I stand behind my comment and I am NOT going to change it, get it!


So in other words, your answer is YES, it is correct that you really don't care what other people tell you becuase you're going to believe what you want to believe, end of discussion. There, was that so hard to acknowledge?



Ok Dave, time to put up! Show me your alledge sources that you claim you have shown?


Good grief, what is your problem? For the gazillionth and SECOND time- WHAT do you want me to post references for?


IF I have accuse you of lying, I meant it and you and I know what lie you have told so stop playing stupid! You just want to play tit for tat baby games that little children play in Romper room


...and HOW is this an example of a lie I posted, may I ask? I ASKED you to post an example of how I lied I don't know how many times and getting you to provide even one example is akin to pulling teeth. In every other part of the world, if someone actually lied then others would gleefully point it out to show they've lied. They wouldn't have to be asked over and over like I'm doing with you.

On second thought, don't bother answering. You admit you don't give a flip what I or anyone else says becuase you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless, you keep demanding I post sources but you never say what for, and now you keep accusing me of lying but you can't provide even ONE example. It's blatantly obvious this is the silly direction you're intending to steer this conversation ad infinitum so I will waste no more time on you.

Go a. and get the last word in, if such things matter to you. You have no credibility whatsoever so I won't bother to respond. You lost this debate, and badly...again.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Photography 101 huh?
How about elementary school and Newtons laws of physics.


All right, videoworldwide, it's clear you put a lot of thought into this "no planes" business. Would you then mind explaining to me just what it was that everyone saw on 9/11, if it wasn't a plane? This occurred in downtown Manhattan in broad daylight so the claim of photo trickery is unsastisfying, and it certainly coulnd't be any holographic image since the technology isn't anywhere near portraying what we all saw, not to mention, holograms don't make noise. So what's left?

FYI "I don't know" will not be an acceptable answer. If you don't like the answer provided then it becomes your responsibility to provide us with an alternative answer that better fits the facts, particularly in a presentation such as this.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Photography 101 huh?
How about elementary school and Newtons laws of physics.


All right, videoworldwide, it's clear you put a lot of thought into this "no planes" business. Would you then mind explaining to me just what it was that everyone saw on 9/11, if it wasn't a plane? This occurred in downtown Manhattan in broad daylight so the claim of photo trickery is unsastisfying, and it certainly coulnd't be any holographic image since the technology isn't anywhere near portraying what we all saw, not to mention, holograms don't make noise. So what's left?

FYI "I don't know" will not be an acceptable answer. If you don't like the answer provided then it becomes your responsibility to provide us with an alternative answer that better fits the facts, particularly in a presentation such as this.


Many people claim they thought it was a missile.

I do not know or proclaim to know exactly what happened. I do KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the videos we all watched were NOT REAL. They are CGI. That is an absolutely established and as far as I'm concerned, proven fact.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Many people claim they thought it was a missile.


The only people who've ever thought it was a missile to my knowledge were people who were using long distance footage and the vague imagery it provided as a basis for their claim, while at the same time intentionally ignoring all the close up footage that distinctly showed it was a large aircraft. Remember, by the time the second craft hit, every man, woman, child, and camera in Manhattan was watching what was happening at the WTC complex. There were many images from many angles that showed what it was that hit the tower.

What do you have that says otherwise?



I do not know or proclaim to know exactly what happened. I do KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the videos we all watched were NOT REAL. They are CGI. That is an absolutely established and as far as I'm concerned, proven fact.


This is by no means a "proven fact" becuase CGI does not address all the live eyewitness accounts, not does it address the fact that there were many, many, MANY cameras that captured the impact from every perceivable angle, and there'd be physically no way anyone could control so many different points of view.

Whatever scenario you propose, it must necessarily be able to explain ALL the events that occured that day (I.E. what the eyewitness saw vs what the video cameras saw vs, what people far away saw vs. what people up close saw, etc) becuase if it can't, it's not a suitable scenario. Do you agree or disagree?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide



Many people claim they thought it was a missile.


( MY emphasis ) for a point below ---*

HERE is a quote from the tragic mid-air collison in Manhattan the other day:

NEW YORK – The pilot who radioed a desperate, last-minute warning says a plane that struck a helicopter over the Hudson River "looked like a cruise missile hitting a target."



NOTE, please what the eyewitness, A PILOT!!!! ( who should know better ) said in a moment of hyperbole to describe an horrific event he witnessed. Please let that soak into your mind, for a moment......Source


NOW *in the following comment by you, you flippin' completely contradict yourself:


I do not know or proclaim to know exactly what happened. I do KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the videos we all watched were NOT REAL. They are CGI. That is an absolutely established and as far as I'm concerned, proven fact.



You should reconsider your staunch position, because it is untenable, and does not show you in a good light.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by videoworldwide



Many people claim they thought it was a missile.


( MY emphasis ) for a point below ---*

HERE is a quote from the tragic mid-air collison in Manhattan the other day:

NEW YORK – The pilot who radioed a desperate, last-minute warning says a plane that struck a helicopter over the Hudson River "looked like a cruise missile hitting a target."



NOTE, please what the eyewitness, A PILOT!!!! ( who should know better ) said in a moment of hyperbole to describe an horrific event he witnessed. Please let that soak into your mind, for a moment......Source


NOW *in the following comment by you, you flippin' completely contradict yourself:


I do not know or proclaim to know exactly what happened. I do KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the videos we all watched were NOT REAL. They are CGI. That is an absolutely established and as far as I'm concerned, proven fact.



You should reconsider your staunch position, because it is untenable, and does not show you in a good light.


I've analyzed every one of the videos, and every one of them is an animation, as far as I can see.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Many people claim they thought it was a missile.

Disinformation. There were maybe 2-3 at most. 2-3 is not many.



Originally posted by videoworldwide
I do KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the videos we all watched were NOT REAL. They are CGI. That is an absolutely established and as far as I'm concerned, proven fact.

I'm so glad that this is all your opinion. Besides titorite and a couple others, the rest of the 10's of thousands of people that come to this forum on a daily basis aren't falling for the CGI disinfo.

The 2 videos below automatically debunk CGI:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Witnesses are talking about and/or are reacting to the plane before it hits the building. That means people see the plane with their own eyes, not CGI'd onto tv. But then the disinfo artists just say that the witnesses are lying and that in itself gives them their "proof" of CGI.

I could do the same disinfo-style tactic. I could say that Godzilla destroyed the towers.






I could say the holes in WTC5 and WTC6 above are from Godzilla's feet. Look at the bottom of the hole on the second image. It looks like toes! All I have to do is say that all the witnesses that didn't see Godzilla are lying and all the videos that didn't film Godzilla are fake. See how easy it is to make up disinformation that a few gullible people could believe?

Just saying the videos are fake and the witnesses are lying is not proof of fakery, or Godzilla.



Originally posted by videoworldwide
I've analyzed every one of the videos, and every one of them is an animation, as far as I can see.

Then you need to seek medical attention ASAP!




[edit on 10-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The truth of this event will not be know until the time we are in right now is ancient history. Our government would fall if certain truths ever got out. There are people at the fringes of society just waiting for an excuse to destroy.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide

I've analyzed every one of the videos, and every one of them is an animation, as far as I can see.


That still does not address the fact that all of southern Manhattan saw the exact same thing that the videos all show. If all the eyewitness accounts corroborate the video footage, and we both know that they do, we have to declare the video to be legitimate, regardless of what you yourself interpret the video to contain. What do you have that refutes this?

Also, If I may ask, just what qualifications and training do you have that allows you to analyze photographs to determine whether something has been artificially inserted, or not? Are you a photographer or video editor? What background do you have with applications like photoshop?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Whatever you say Dave, but your creditability will never be as strong as mine. You lose!

Dave do you have anything constructive to add to this thread than to personally attack me?

It is my “opinion” that this kind of behavior is what keeping people from having a real discussing it is also a well-known method that is used by disinformationist when they can’t debunk the truth. People who support facts and the truth do not need to play games or tell lies as you have been confronted time after time of doing so. Have a nice day.


Dave do you alway have to have the last words? I have challanged you to a debate and you have refused. One only needs to read your rants and how you always avoid answering questions. so Dave it is you who has lost, and I know why I had put you on ignor! You have a nice day

*ignore*



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide

I've analyzed every one of the videos, and every one of them is an animation, as far as I can see.


Firstly, CGI refers only to the video footage, so there's still the issue with what people on the ground witnessed. You were about 15 at the time of the event, and living on the opposite side of the country, and now you want to tell people, including people who were grown adults and professionals at the time that what they saw was a hologram or a missile, and that they were all simply mistaken? I think you're going to have a hard time convincing people of that.

I've seen you claim in other posts that (just like John Lear) you believe there were hologram planes. You provided some claims that a hologram could be projected on to an artificially-made cloud (being a collection of water droplets suspended in the air), as thus be made to appear real. Another issue, therefore, is how this 'cloud' was made to travel at 500+ mph towards the buildings. The lack of mass for this cloud, and lack of any form of momentum would make this hard to achieve.

Thirdly, the photo below shows a lot of wreckage on top of WTC5, including large parts of the plane fuselage:



I guess my question is - given that after the first plane hit the towers, the whole downtown area became the most filmed and photographed area on Earth - how did this piece get here? If you're so convinced there were no planes, it surely must have been planted.

I can see four options:
a) some guys carried it up the stairs and dumped it on the roof
b) some guys carried it up in the elevator and dumped it
c) it was lifted up outside the building using a crane and dumped
d) it was lowered in place with a helicopter

Either way, I can't see how any of these were done without numerous witnesses to it being placed there, either directly photographed or seen, or caught in the background of other filming taking place. Given that you're so adamant that there were no planes, and it was all faked, which of those four options do you think explains the piece of fuselage being on the roof of WTC5?

Rewey



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
How about elementary school and Newtons laws of physics.


Also, I hate to point this out, but Newton's laws of physics are all about motion, and having nothing at all to do with camera angles...


Originally posted by videoworldwide
I do KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the videos we all watched were NOT REAL. They are CGI. That is an absolutely established and as far as I'm concerned, proven fact.


That may be your opinion, but posting things like this about yourself:


Originally posted by videoworldwide
I have often thought that stars are not what the scientists tell us..but i'm also considered a right-wing extremist conspiracy researching paranoid maniac, so it's understandable.


...means that everyone else on ATS are even less likely to accept what you have to say without some concrete, tangible evidence, other than mere opinion...

Rewey



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 



You were about 15 at the time of the event, and living on the opposite side of the country...


He was 15 at the time?


Oh dear, oh dear. Well, that explains a lot.

Should we assign blame in the critical thinking skills to the poor school systems, or to the prevalence of video games???



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Since "videoworldwide" is banned (for now), there really isn't much more to say on this subject as he's gone and his "Absolute Proof John Lear NPT" thread was moved to the HOAX forum where the rest of the NPT threads should be.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Since "videoworldwide" is banned (for now), there really isn't much more to say on this subject as he's gone and his "Absolute Proof John Lear NPT" thread was moved to the HOAX forum where the rest of the NPT threads should be.



Videoworldwide was banned...? Too bad. It was obvious he was posting this bit NOT becuase he was trying to tell us the truth as he saw it, but becuase he had an agenda to support the "no planes" theory despite the truth. Such people become self evident in short order- The more they post, the more they only wind up painting themselves into the corner with their own words.

Where the heck did this goofy "no planes" theory originally come from, anyway? Does anyone know?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join