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: 19
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   


As usual your post is illogical.....


Of course it's illogical, as it means that no airplanes were involved in the attacks. Don't worry, maybe one day you'll figure all this out - just like I'm sure you'll figure out where Azizonia/Arizonia is.




posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


Based on that narrative you read from airliners.net, who did you reckon this?:


Sounds like they were in very rapid decent just before impact!!


Look at the timelines for the phone call from Betty Ong, and any comments about the descent (you will find this is earlier, from the cruise altitude of 29,000). Looks like reading into it too much.

Here...actual altitudes were not precisely measured (when compared to UAL 175) because they only had primary radar returns. NORAD's radar information were used to augment what ATC radar could not measure:

Flight Path Study - American Airlines 11

Page #2. Average rate of descent 3,200 fpm. (This is not very excessive, really. Just in normal descents, it's around 2,200 to 2,500, depends on the speed you select, and a bit on your weight too).

Looks like both AAL 11 and UAL 175 employed about the same tactic...staying high and steep, with nearly level just for the last portion. Kamikaze style......




edit on 13 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


I'm just going by the words spoken weed..

"For a flight attendant to say rapid descent, it's rapid and it's quick. We don't use those terms very loosely," said Woodward.

Are they wrong????



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
A new member of the Scholars forum has posted this. Do any of your know about PVI? Tell me more. Thanks.

Comment by jane doe 16 minutes ago

Please Jim, look into PVI. PVI sold the company in December 2010 to Sportvision and ESPN2. IT WAS A PVI VIRTUAL ANIMATION. Even the guys from letsrollforums agree with me NOW.

If you know someone who has a tv production truck, maybe they can show it to you. The operator plots a 3D wireframe on a camera shot. A point is picked from which the animation is executed. You will notice if you watch the helicopter footage, that the camera zooms in 2 times. The director was checking the animation in the preview monitor, before the plane animation was taken on the program monitor. The wireframe was a big off, and was not reset, that is why the plane icon went past the predetermined border. The camera shot MOVED. There were NO PLANES. It was an elaborate ILLUSION.

Don Dahler reported for ABC saying he didn't see a plane. Charles Gibson told him WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO SEE.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
A new member of the Scholars forum has posted this. Do any of your know about PVI? Tell me more. Thanks.

Comment by jane doe 16 minutes ago

Please Jim, look into PVI. PVI sold the company in December 2010 to Sportvision and ESPN2. IT WAS A PVI VIRTUAL ANIMATION. Even the guys from letsrollforums agree with me NOW.

If you know someone who has a tv production truck, maybe they can show it to you. The operator plots a 3D wireframe on a camera shot. A point is picked from which the animation is executed. You will notice if you watch the helicopter footage, that the camera zooms in 2 times. The director was checking the animation in the preview monitor, before the plane animation was taken on the program monitor. The wireframe was a big off, and was not reset, that is why the plane icon went past the predetermined border. The camera shot MOVED. There were NO PLANES. It was an elaborate ILLUSION.

Don Dahler reported for ABC saying he didn't see a plane. Charles Gibson told him WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO SEE.

Yeah . . . okay, Jim. I get it now. Makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why I didn't see it before! Hey when's the next NP church retreat? Can I come? When is Simon going to serve the kool-aid? Are we all going back to the mother ship?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


I can't help but think you are pulling our leg... Nobody really believes what you are typing... I find it hard to believe that this world has become so numb to family and friends... Jim, where are your family and friends? The ones that are supposed to be there when things are going really bad?

If I were to start suffering from serious mental illness and delusions, my family would be the first people there to help me. They would get me the help that I so desperately need. Maybe some people dont have a solid support structure to reinforce reality in a fantasy filled mind.

It is good to question things in life... But it is dangerous and self destructive to let your mind get drawn into a world of complete fantasy.. Once a person loses all touch with reality, fantasy can take several dangerous turns, that normally lead to some sort of "extended confinement."

2 things to remember in life Jim...

There are ZERO "life points" for finding a conspiracy in everything.
If you choose not to use one ounce of reality in critical thinking, fantasy is the only thought left!



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
A new member of the Scholars forum has posted this. Do any of your know about PVI? Tell me more. Thanks.


PVI stands for Persons Visually Impaired.

You need to be careful Jim, your fantasy may be fast heading into insanity.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Originally posted by JimFetzer
A new member of the Scholars forum has posted this. Do any of your know about PVI? Tell me more. Thanks.

Comment by jane doe 16 minutes ago

Please Jim, look into PVI. PVI sold the company in December 2010 to Sportvision and ESPN2. IT WAS A PVI VIRTUAL ANIMATION. Even the guys from letsrollforums agree with me NOW.

If you know someone who has a tv production truck, maybe they can show it to you. The operator plots a 3D wireframe on a camera shot. A point is picked from which the animation is executed. You will notice if you watch the helicopter footage, that the camera zooms in 2 times. The director was checking the animation in the preview monitor, before the plane animation was taken on the program monitor. The wireframe was a big off, and was not reset, that is why the plane icon went past the predetermined border. The camera shot MOVED. There were NO PLANES. It was an elaborate ILLUSION.

Don Dahler reported for ABC saying he didn't see a plane. Charles Gibson told him WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO SEE.


After re-reading your post, I think I may have misinterpreted it (don't forget to use quotes for words that aren't yours), if I did, apologies. I took the last two paragraphs to be your own words, but looking at it again--it doesn't sound like you. I interpreted your PVI question as rhetorical. Were you genuinely asking for info on PVI?
edit on 14-2-2011 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Here is a study by Ace Baker, which demonstrates
his theory of how it was done, which is fascinating:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Yes, I am/was genuinely asking for information about PVI,
which may or may not provide an alternative to the theory
Ace Baker has advanced. I am still learning about all this.
Here's more from a member of the Scholars forum, where
I am aware of the use of this technique to draw first-down
lines and so forth during pro football games. What I don't
yet see is how it works for faking the plane hitting the ST:

The downlines on football games and the 1st & 10 logo is generated by the PVI LVIS computer. The technical director mixes the signal upstream from the LVIS/PVI monitor with the program video at the switcher.

Here is how it works:

PVI operator has two monitors, one for the live feed, one for the PVI graphic mixed with the live feed, and a LVIS (linear virtual imaging systerm) computer. After the software is loaded on the PC, a camera shot of the field appears in the monitor. The operator grabs the 1st freeze of the camera shot. The software then goes to the part of the program that represents the 100 yd field. [the field map is a 100 yd green rectangle/cartoonlike. Never at the same time will the camera see more than 1/3 of the field.]

Lets say, camera left shot is grapped first. The operator picks 2 horizontal lines to represent the sidelines and 3 vertical lines to represent the yardlines. [For a football game, 3 camera shots are mapped: Camera left, Camera center, Camera right.] 3 yardlines & 2 sidelines/or 1 sideline & 1 hashmarks are needed to be plotted to create the virtual wireframe.

Lines are plotted by points chosen on the actual grabbed shot. Lines are plotted on the camera shot of the field by selecting 2 points for a horizontal line, 2 lines are made for the sidelines. Next, 2 points picked for each yardline. 3 vertical lines are selected. After 5 lines are chosen (2 horizontal & 3 vertical), make wireframe is clicked and within seconds the virtual wireframe appears.

reply to post by brainsandgravy
 



edit on 15-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   


Don Dahler reported for ABC saying he didn't see a plane. Charles Gibson told him WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO SEE.


He wasn't the only eyewitness on the scene who did not see or hear a plane and was told by a member of the media "what they were supposed to see."





Or how about this witness?





Unless you are deaf (and obviously these witnesses aren't), how can you not hear an airplane traveling at 550 MPH at an elevation of only 800-900 feet?




edit on 15-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


Don Dahler reported for ABC saying he didn't see a plane. Charles Gibson told him WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO SEE.


He wasn't the only eyewitness on the scene who did not see or hear a plane and was told by a member of the media "what they were supposed to see."





Or how about this witness?





Unless you are deaf (and obviously these witnesses aren't), how can you not hear an airplane traveling at 550 MPH at an elevation of only 800-900 feet?




edit on 15-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)


Come on Sphinx--you're slippin'. Back to this old hype? What does an eye-witness who missed seeing the impact prove? It proves nothing except that their view was obstructed, or they weren't looking when it happened. Oberstein said, "I heard a boom, then I looked up and saw an explosion". Is that proof of no plane? Let's listen to what she had to say about the second plane. Watch at 01:22 :


edit on 15-2-2011 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2011 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


THAT YouTube video is a load of bull pucky. Hardly worth considering, by rational people. Will be completely torn apart with only a modicum of reason and logic and evidence.

But, more to the point....I have seen a few slip-ups in posts that have led me to ask this....:

"JimFetzer", as a current ATS username, registered 25 January 2011....is this not a second ATS account, by the same individual?? As "JimFetzer" a few posts ago, you signed off with the name, and identity of "Abraham", a medical student...SAME as the fellow who called himself "Abe", with the exact same name and info about being a student, who uses this ATS username: PookztA.

IF you are here under false pretenses, then it is a serious Terms and Conditions violation. (Or, forget your other password, and just started over?? ATS provides password recovery tools, you know....).

I think you have an opportunity for amnesty, if you play your cards correctly.....and fall on your sword....
edit on 15 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
There is one and only one me, Jim Fetzer, and I post under my own name. I am unaware of any instance in which I have used a handle other than one or more variations on my own name, JimFetzer, jfetzer, James H. Fetzer, or whatever. I most certainly have not registered here under any other name than my own. Is there more to this? I made a repost of a post from someone else. That must be what you are referring to. I left the name of the person who had forwarded it to me or whose post had been forwarded by someone else. Is that an offense? I do not like to take credit for the work of others. Looking for it, I've noticed some dumb posts to which I shall reply fairly soon.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



edit on 16-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: adding a sentence



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
The name "HOOPER" appears in each of my replies to these responses, which are seriously uninformed ("dumb").

quote]Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



I have explained that (1) the plane is traveling at an impossible speed, which has been confirmed by a study from Pilots for 9'11 Truth which I have archived here,

Which we have all seen and determined is a crock and you give it high praise by calling it a "study", its more an exercise in "because I said so and I say I'm a pilot".

HOOPER, who are you to contest the experts who have certified that it was flying at an impossible speed? See "Pandora's Black Box" for those who have any doubts. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed this precise point.


and explained in detail by John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, in an affidavit I have also archived here;

If you say so. I do not consider him, by any stretch of the imagination "one of our nations most distinguished pilots" with the exception, of course of some of his other theories whcih really do distinguish him from other pilots.

HOOPER has no idea what he is talking about. Anyone who reads the affidavit can see for themselves that John Lear has explained why, at that altitude, the turbine would function as "breaks" on its forward thrust.


(2) that its entry into the building is in violation of Newton's laws, where the effects of a collision between an aluminum airliner flying at over 500 mph with a 500,000-ton steel and concrete building would be the same regardless of which is stationary and which is moving, where the plane is intersecting

Of course always failing to note that the plane did not strike the entire building, it struck a small area of the outside wall of the building. It was only the resistance of the small building section that the plane was opposing, not the whole structure. This is as basic as it gets.

HOOPER would have you believe that a car hitting a tree is only impacting with a small part of that tree. Those floors were anchored to the ground through the core columns and the supporting columns. Is this typical of the quality of thought that HOOPER puts into his posts? Personally, he should be embarrassed to be posting here.


with eight (8) floors of concrete on steel trusses, which would have provided enormous horizontal resistance;

They do offer resistance. But just simply not enough. Don't agree? Show the math.

HOOPER makes another in a seemingly endless list of trivial or false posts. Look at the cross section of the building I provided in the first fifteen (15) slides of "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?" at 911scholars.org....


(3) where the plane passes through its own length in entering the building in the same number of frames it takes to pass through its own length in air (in both the Hezarkhani and the Fairbanks videos), which would be impossible unless a massive, steel-and-concrete building provided no more resistance to the trajectory of the plane than air;

Sorry, you've been fully corrected on this suggestion. The video recordation of the event is not sufficient to determine absolutely that there was no resistance.

HOOPER doesn't understand that there is nothing subtle about this. Most of the plane's velocity should have fallen to zero, with crumpling, the tail and wings breaking off, and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. You can count the frames on either of the primary films and they produce equal numbers in both cases.


(4) the cookie-cutter cut outs (which are like the Roadrunner/Yosemite Sam cartoons of my youth), not only do not resemble what an actual plane impact would have created (where the body of the plane would have crumpled, the wings and the tail would have broken off and bodies, seats, and luggage would have fallen to the ground), but do not even show up until after the plane has already entered the building,

So you really are insisting that the plane should have basically disintegrated upon impact with the building facade, huh? Boy thats amazing. Whats even more amazing is that you were suprised that the hole in the building didn't appear until after the plane crashed into it!

HOOPER, no, I am not "insisting that the plane should have basically disintegrated upon impact with the building"! Who would be dumb enough to think that? Take another look at how the plane effortlessly disappears into this massive, 500,000-ton building. If you think that's a real plane, you need some serious help.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
This is a minor point, but Bush was in the air in Air Force One after it took off from Sarasota, where he had been reading with children about a pet goat. "By 3 p.m., Air Force One touched down at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska." But he took off from Sarasota shortly before 10 AM. "At 9:57 a.m., Air Force One thundered down the runway, blasting smoke and dust in a full-thrust take off."

reply to post by backinblack
 



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Jim please lets us know where you were educated so we can stop kids going there.

The towers facade were built in sections if the ENERGY of the impact was great enough to break the conections between sections (which it was) the planes would go through.

You have no idea of the physics that apply here lets give an example using your BS physics.

If I built a brick wall say single skin 50 ft wide x 10ft tall and drove a car at it at a resonable speed
no damage would occur,because under you construction physics all the bricks because they are
joined together would take the load of the impact DO REALLY THINK THAT WOULD HAPPEN what's
more important DO YOUR SUPORTERS THINK THAT??????

Also many posts back I showed a link to a picture of the space shuttle window damaged by a fleck of paint which according to your physics should have splattered of the 78000kg shuttle's window and caused no damage after all its a softer object hitting a harder object.

So why no answer re that is it because it shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

So lets see your answer because if you cant its shows how wrong YOU and YOUR spporters are!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I know what would happen to a brick wall but how about a 4" slice of concrete?

I've also seen cars ram into the back of tray trucks..
The driver and the car usually come of second best..
The truck usually drives away..



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   


Come on Sphinx--you're slippin'. Back to this old hype? What does an eye-witness who missed seeing the impact prove? It proves nothing except that their view was obstructed, or they weren't looking when it happened. Oberstein said, "I heard a boom, then I looked up and saw an explosion". Is that proof of no plane? Let's listen to what she had to say about the second plane. Watch at 01:22 :


I don't mind slippin' - as long as it's not on your slimy garbage. Yeah, because a "boom" sounds like an airplane approaching at 550 MPH at an altitude of 800 feet. By the way, we won't mention the fact that an airplane is not designed to fly at that speed at such a low altitude. We'll keep it our little secret. Ssssshhhhh!

Sounds like after a bit of coaching and persuasion, our witness Oberstein finally got the official story "correct" the second time.


All those thousands of witnesses and NBC talks to the same witness twice? A witness who "screwed up" the first time by not sticking to the official fairy tale script. How about that?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   


This is a minor point, but Bush was in the air in Air Force One after it took off from Sarasota, where he had been reading with children about a pet goat. "By 3 p.m., Air Force One touched down at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska." But he took off from Sarasota shortly before 10 AM. "At 9:57 a.m., Air Force One thundered down the runway, blasting smoke and dust in a full-thrust take off."


If AF1 touched down in Nebraska 3 pm Central, that would make it 4 pm Eastern, which would be a whopping 6 hour flight from Florida to Nebraska. Maybe the pilot was pounding down a few with Bush, got drunk and lost his way.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


By your logic if somebody stabbed you in the back and you didn't see them they wouldn't exist. But you'd still have to deal with the stab wound.

And thethree people in the street who witnessed the stabbing would of course be trumped by the one guy who happened to be facing the other way.




top topics



 
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join