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.

 

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Was there any plane debris observed in either of the two WTC gashes, the one's that 767's supposedly caused?

.
edit on 8-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Was there any plane debris observed in either of the two WTC gashes, the one's that 767's supposedly caused?

.
edit on 8-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)


Not that I could see in the pics and why I called into question the other poster who posted pibs of the plane hitting the Empire State building..
As there was visible wreckage left at the entrance point..

BTW, no reply to that...How unusual..



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni



Does this look real....or are you going to argue because I have never seen a Boeing crash into the WTC, I cannot question how it looks like CGI???

Reminds me of those Warner Bros cartoons.....BEEP BEEP!!


Is it just me or does the left wing seem to disappear?/
Obviously one of those optical illusions the skeptics are so fond of..



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

yes man. it has been proven without doubt at:

septemberclues.info...

if you are genuine, you will go through the vicsims report, and everything else besides, to learn the proven extent of the fakery.

if you are not, you won't.



I'm always amazed at the number of people who buy in to Simon Shack's sophistry. September Clues must be one the most sophomoric, easily debunked works of "film" propaganda ever created. The guy is simply obtuse (and out of his mind). Though I must give him an A for effort.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
To me, it ALL just disappears!!
Like a hot knife thru butter....no sign of anything even vaguely falling to the street.

Totally CGI...totally unnatural looking....totally fake!!

So my answer Mr. Metzer...YES, resoundingly so!!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy

Originally posted by pshea38

yes man. it has been proven without doubt at:

septemberclues.info...

if you are genuine, you will go through the vicsims report, and everything else besides, to learn the proven extent of the fakery.

if you are not, you won't.



I'm always amazed at the number of people who buy in to Simon Shack's sophistry. September Clues must be one the most sophomoric, easily debunked works of "film" propaganda ever created. The guy is simply obtuse (and out of his mind). Though I must give him an A for effort.


So, brainorgravy, in order for us to think that you're not implying in your signature what you by far got between your ears, would you then be kind enough to enlighten us about this "debunking" you're talking about!

You know, i hope, how easy it is to detect a liar or dishonest person, so trust you'll do your utmost to be fair, just
and absolutely impeccable in your endeavour to quote in context, as well as showing us some signs that you're
completely familiar with the pro's and con's about the subject in question.
Trusting you're a man of integrity!

Cheers



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy

Originally posted by pshea38

yes man. it has been proven without doubt at:

septemberclues.info...

if you are genuine, you will go through the vicsims report, and everything else besides, to learn the proven extent of the fakery.

if you are not, you won't.




I'm always amazed at the number of people who buy in to Simon Shack's sophistry. September Clues must be one the most sophomoric, easily debunked works of "film" propaganda ever created. The guy is simply obtuse (and out of his mind). Though I must give him an A for effort.


debunk away,, i think you will have a tough time of it.

the site shows nothing but maturity and sound judgement. your talk is cheap because your fears are grand.

do you care to comment on hoi polloi's extensive victim simulations report( along with the numerous threads) that completely disprove the authenticity of countless 9/11 supposed victims.

again debunk away, if you dare.

my guess is that you won't even try, because it will only direct attention towards the heart of the whole matter.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Section of exterior wall in street - note aircraft wheel embedded in it








posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Sorry, but it's true that Simon Shack is either delusional, not very smart or both. OR, an intentional huckster and hoaxer, who thinks his audience are too stupid to see thorugh his obvious fallacies.

Why you (or ANYONE) still attempts to cite "september clues" is beyond comprehension. First, it is SO 2007!

Fortunately, there are people who call him (Simon) out, and make the effort to professional tear him apart:


Google Video Link



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
you go ahead and put me where you will. whatever about how you view my comments, i don't think jim has made any disgusting or absurd remarks, and i have read this whole thread.


I'm sorry, I find it extremely absurd that Jim says that people within the FDNY, who are above reproach, would be in on it. But hey, that's just me.


Originally posted by pshea38
in fact i was banned from posting recently for calling somebody retarded after i was personnally attacked, something i see you have done to jim in one of your earlier posts. i am not seeing you slapped with a ban!


Because I didn't call Jim retarded, I pointed out that what Jim SAID was retarded. Well within the rules.


Originally posted by pshea38

i see only too well now why ye have tried and are still trying so hard. the vice is tightening for the real
perpetrators of 9/11.


Your vice seems to be on backorder.


Originally posted by pshea38
more and more evidense is coming to light. the final nail will be the gradual mass realisation that not only were the planes faked but that most if not all of the victims were faked also. then what?


Then you're going to have to explain how personal friends of mine were just a figment of my imagination for years.



Originally posted by pshea38
i don't know. big trouble for quite afew, i'm guessing. i suggest that if you are so concerned about the honour and dignity of your firefighting victim comrades that you contact all the families of all of the firefighters who have been represented so poorly in all of the memorial tributes and photographs, and demand from them images that not been mirrored, photoshopped, doctored and otherwise faked, and plead with these numerous families to show even a little respect and genuity in their tributes to their lost loved ones.


Yeah, your opinion that the victims' memorial pages are fake and photoshopped is retarded at best. What it really is, would get me suspended at the least.

Again, you will have to explain to me why people that I knew for years were just imaginary.


Originally posted by pshea38
personally i don't think you will have too much luck locating the vast majority. you do this and i will very humbly retract every single thing i have said.


Some I still speak with to this day. Would you care to contact them and tell them that to their face? I will put you in contact with a family of one of the victims today if you will.



Originally posted by pshea38

now me, i have cut to the chase. it only remains for the majority to stop dawdling.. however, i believe there is a drastic contingency plan in place by the guilty for if/when truth becomes widespread and bid trouble comes knocking.


Ok. So, what are you doing exactly? Other than mindless rants on obscure message boards?


Originally posted by pshea38

we are hearing on this site and elsewhere the rumblings of some strange very political activities. i believe the grander chase may be now on in earnest. i do not know what i plan on doing then. do you?
edit on 7-2-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)


We're still waiting for the first step, let alone anything else. I imagine that the "perps" are drinking coffee and reading the morning paper, getting ready to start their day like they normally do.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by ATH911
Was there any plane debris observed in either of the two WTC gashes, the one's that 767's supposedly caused?

.
edit on 8-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)


Not that I could see in the pics and why I called into question the other poster who posted pibs of the plane hitting the Empire State building..
As there was visible wreckage left at the entrance point..

BTW, no reply to that...How unusual..


How unusual, someone else who doesn't understand forward momentum.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by benoni



Does this look real....or are you going to argue because I have never seen a Boeing crash into the WTC, I cannot question how it looks like CGI???

Reminds me of those Warner Bros cartoons.....BEEP BEEP!!


Is it just me or does the left wing seem to disappear?/
Obviously one of those optical illusions the skeptics are so fond of..


Yes, it does disappear. 14th generation videos compressed into .gif images, and cut and recompressed tend to do that.

Here is another one. Wing doesn't disappear.
www.youtube.com...

Another.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Backinblack wrote


Is it just me or does the left wing seem to disappear?/
Obviously one of those optical illusions the skeptics are so fond of..


Watch what happens to the starboard (right) wing of this Boeing 757 doing a display? Note at around the 0:16 mark the outer portion of the wing 'disappears'? Now you know the wing hasn't disappeared, so how do you explain it apparently vanashing on that portion of the video?



Watch what happens to the port wing (left) of this Boeing 757 being displayed at the 02:30 mark? Now you know that the wing didn't fall off or disappear as you can see it is still attached in the landing footage. Note the very bright conditions and also remember the weather conditions on September 11th 2001?



This 'disappearing wing' has already been explained on ATS within the past few months. When you deal with low quality video/still images, poor resolution, bright conditions/reflections/angles, etc you will get all manner of anomolies.

TJ



edit on 8-2-2011 by tommyjo because: Additional info added

edit on 8-2-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by brainsandgravy

Originally posted by pshea38

yes man. it has been proven without doubt at:

septemberclues.info...

if you are genuine, you will go through the vicsims report, and everything else besides, to learn the proven extent of the fakery.

if you are not, you won't.




I'm always amazed at the number of people who buy in to Simon Shack's sophistry. September Clues must be one the most sophomoric, easily debunked works of "film" propaganda ever created. The guy is simply obtuse (and out of his mind). Though I must give him an A for effort.


debunk away,, i think you will have a tough time of it.

the site shows nothing but maturity and sound judgement. your talk is cheap because your fears are grand.

do you care to comment on hoi polloi's extensive victim simulations report( along with the numerous threads) that completely disprove the authenticity of countless 9/11 supposed victims.

again debunk away, if you dare.

my guess is that you won't even try, because it will only direct attention towards the heart of the whole matter.


Debunking Shack is like taking candy from a child. Actually--it's not even necessary. As Yougene Debs points out--Shack debunks himself:



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, we've been through this before: video compression artifacts.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni

Does this look real....or are you going to argue because I have never seen a Boeing crash into the WTC, I cannot question how it looks like CGI???

Reminds me of those Warner Bros cartoons.....BEEP BEEP!!


A little slow aren't we benoni?

Do you seriously think that a multiply reproduced video, with a video software effect, uploaded onto YouTube is gonna look any different?

Ally this to the fact that you have NEVER actually witnessed any jet aircraft impact ANY building, let alone one impacting the non conventional tube frame designed buildings that were the Twin Towers.....you would be clueless as to what a real impact would look like.

So even though I'm sure you've done plenty of YouTube watching for your research, you're most likely non the wiser as to what such an event would actually look like on the ground in non YouTube land.

Seems I was right when I inferred you were being naive benoni.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 


No problem. I remember your posts from previous threads when the 'disappearing wing' was last brought up.

One of the videos that you posted back then was the Flight 175 compilation of images from various photographers.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

From

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TJ



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Thank you very much for the youtube link FD343.

1. Check out the five second mark on this video: the plane seems to be in such a hurry that it leaves behind the tip of its left wing. Of course, only to have the wing catch up with it in the following frame. Compression artifact or horrendous CGI?

2. Check out the left wing of the airplane as it passes by the brown building in the background. That's an awfully funky way for a wing to appear when it should be in the foreground. Obviously, the guy who did this CGI either thought the brown building was in the foreground or had a difficult time blending together the wing and skyline layers.

3. Check out the inexplicable amount of pixelation around the aircraft. If this is a video artifact, why is there no pixelation around the Towers, other buildings, the smoke or anything else in the entire shot? Last time I checked, video artifacts are not that selective. Point being compression artifacts are random and not as selective as they appear to be in this video, targeting only the moving aircraft.

In any event, this Artifact vs CGI argument can easily be put to rest by securing and analyzing the original footage, which would probably show the exact same "glitches", only more pronounced due to higher resolution. In other words, a snowball has a better chance in hell than the public has of seeing the original video.



edit on 8-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
A basic desideratum of criticism is to be sure you know the argument you are attempting to defeat. Why don't you explain my arguments and tell us how these videos are supposed to defeat them? As far as I can see, they do nothing of the sort, but there seem to be some who are eager to agree with you in spite of the evidence. Since John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and a study by Pilots for 9/11 Truth both support the impossible speed of the plane shown in the videos, how does this response cope with that question? The impossible entry in defiance of Newton's laws cannot be defeated by showing the plane entering the building in defiance of Newton's laws. So what exactly do you think you are proving here? Do you think the plane should pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? That implies that this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air. If you think this is a real plane, then my hats off to you. Some of us have a far greater tolerance for fantasy than do I. You may be the best example of living in delusion on this thread.

reply to post by brainsandgravy
 



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



Some of us have a far greater tolerance for fantasy than do I.

Now, now. Don't sell yourself short. You appear to have an enormous tolerance for fantasy. I mean, you believe that government gnomes projected holograms in broad daylight in downtown Manhattan onto the World Trade Center with such expertise that the witnesses could have sworn they saw scraps of an airplane laying on the ground!



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join