Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 05:38 PM by nwodeath
Originally posted by Lichter daraus
one question. What is the white dot on the building just in front of the airplane?


www.freedomdomain.com...


Very very good question. Thanks.

I'm not sure, to tell you the truth, but it appears to be a video effect of somekind. I would propose it represented a time/space point that something was supposed to take place in. Perhaps two pieces were spliced together at that point, because one piece of animation was made with the plane approaching the building, then another was made to show the plane entering the building, and yet another would have been made to display the explosion effect. At some point, the animator would splice these pieces together and they would need a time/space point of that would serve as the moment of impact. This is simply a guess and nothing more.

Another guess I have is that they started to create a scene for an impact explosion, then decided not to and to wait until after entry into the building. The timing though did not work out well, because the plane went in too far before the timing of the explosion. Some of this could be due to "rendering" problems and some due to mixing/splicing pieces and the timing involved.

To me, it seems as though the pieces of footage were made at the last minute, or very close to the actual time of the incident. In other words, I don't think they were made 6 months prior with enough time to work out all the problems. I think this is why there are so man y fake videos on the media and some of the same ones, the same exact ones, differ from network to network. They are different CGI animation attempts that were used. Some better than others.

One good example of this is the very one at the top of the page. Both are supposed to be the exact same video, however the planes are different sizes and shapes and also the black shadow bar under the plane, likely a video effect, is lower on the picture on the left and higher on the picture on the right. The video line or shadow should be in exactly the same place but it's not. The shadow bar i'm talking about is approx. 1" lower than the plane on the left, and only approx. 1/2" on the image on the right.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by nwodeath]



reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 05:46 PM by Lichter daraus
reply to post by nwodeath


Yeah its been going on for so long now its hard to tell anymore.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 05:47 PM by Lichter daraus
reply to post by grrrrt


Who are you talking to?



reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 06:56 PM by trebor451
Originally posted by nwodeath
A while back someone posted a thread on here asking people to debunk this page...


Debunk what? Right off the bat the guy who did that page is up idiot creek without a paddle.

Take his comment:

Also, aluminum, does not penetrate steel. No matter what anyone says to mislead you. It's a lie. Steel would deflect aluminum upon impact no matter how fast the plane is traveling...Aluminum will not and cannot penetrate steel like it was shown to on the videos, and the government and 911 truthers claim. The law of the universe cannot be bent to suite this one occasion in history.


What did the plane have to penetrate? Well, first off, glass. A bunch of it. What was holding that glass? A bunch of steel spandrels that were linked together to form the outer support structure of the building. How big or thick were these spandrels? Approximately 3/8” with a box depth of approximately 1’ 2” - forming a 14” square box. These outer wall spandrels were connected together with 4 bolts and welding. (both this data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5).

What was slamming into those 14" square boxes and windows? A Boeing 767 weighing in at over 100 tons traveling at around 750 feet per second.

Anyone who says that a 14" square box-beam support structure with a 36" wide strengthened-glass window will stop - no, will deflect - a 100 ton body moving at 750 feet per second is without a brain.

The aforementioned facts render *anything* else in that webpage null and void...and debunked.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by trebor451]


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 07:13 PM by nwodeath
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by nwodeath
A while back someone posted a thread on here asking people to debunk this page...


Debunk what? Right off the bat the guy who did that page is up idiot creek without a paddle.

Take his comment:

Also, aluminum, does not penetrate steel. No matter what anyone says to mislead you. It's a lie. Steel would deflect aluminum upon impact no matter how fast the plane is traveling...Aluminum will not and cannot penetrate steel like it was shown to on the videos, and the government and 911 truthers claim. The law of the universe cannot be bent to suite this one occasion in history.


What did the plane have to penetrate? Well, first off, glass. A bunch of it. What was holding that glass? A bunch of steel spandrels that were linked together to form the outer support structure of the building. How big or thick were these spandrels? Approximately 3/8” with a box depth of approximately 1’ 2” - forming a 14” square box. These outer wall spandrels were connected together with 4 bolts and welding. (both this data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5).

What was slamming into those 14" square boxes and windows? A Boeing 767 weighing in at over 100 tons traveling at around 750 feet per second.

Anyone who says that a 14" square box-beam support structure with a 36" wide strengthened-glass window will stop - no, will deflect - a 100 ton body moving at 750 feet per second is without a brain.

The aforementioned facts render *anything* else in that webpage null and void...and debunked.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by trebor451]


You have done nothing to render anything null and void and the fact that you claim you have rendered something null and void is highly suspicious.

No plane impact reaction on the face of the building......besides the aluminum penetrating steel, which is impossible.

You wasted a lot of space. Nothing more, and your post was worthless.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 07:56 PM by ATH911
reply to post by nwodeath

Weird how the coloring is so different in all the shots. You'd think the coloring would be more consistent.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 08:01 PM by jprophet420
reply to post by nwodeath


I already have refuted it. I said that I watched it live and there was no cgi then. I also said I watched archives and there was no cgi there. The archives are here at the top of this page and completely debunk anything you posted. If you can't find the time to look at them it is your loss, not mine. Have a coke and a smile and relax. If you want to look for missing planes start with flight 77.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 08:12 PM by thedman
reply to post by nwodeath




No plane impact reaction on the face of the building......besides the aluminum penetrating steel, which is impossible.


So how do you explain this?

USS Hinsdale APA 120



USS Sterett DD 407



Empire State Building after B25 impact July 1945

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Seems back in WWII - 60 years before Sept 11 aluminium airplanes could
penetrate side of steel ships and masonry buildings
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags