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: 24
11
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Did you even read my original post? I explained that I have even interviewed a fellow who had taken a course on holography at Cambridge and that he had assured me that, based upon his studies, it was technically possible. If you want to verify the same-number-of-frames argument, then do a single-frame advance and count them as the plane enters its whole length into the building and as it passes through its whole length in air. You really are here grasping after straws. I like your Bogart impersonation, but he would not have made silly arguments like yours.

reply to post by mister.old.school
 




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
why don't you admit that your John-Lear-CIA gambit has fallen short

He is your gambit, sourced by you as an accomplished pilot, in this thread. So, then what you're saying via the link you provided, that your accomplished pilot was wrong when he originally confirmed the speed and altitude were possible?

Which is it?

And no one supposes that this may be yet another case of a passenger airline exhibiting performance characteristics that are briefly beyond design expectations?

And further, why are you using a source, Pilots For 9/11 Truth, that presumes aircraft were involved in the events of the day? If your theory is that holograms were involved, why are you sourcing this organization (which believes aircraft were involved) for the data to prove your theory?



I explained that I have even interviewed a fellow who had taken a course on holography at Cambridge and that he had assured me that, based upon his studies, it was technically possible.

Someone who "took a course" on holography is your source? Not an expert from MIT (where some of the most advanced and impressive research is happening) or Graham Saxby, an internationally recognized holography expert and author of several books on the subject?

Someone who "took a course" hardly seems to be an expert worthy of a group who's motto is, "Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths."



If you want to verify the same-number-of-frames argument, then do a single-frame advance and count them as the plane enters its whole length into the building and as it passes through its whole length in air.

Please provide a link to a video that you feel best illustrates this point.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I don't recall you ever addressing the vg diagram..
Usually the posters were banned and you didn't answer other than to say it's rubish without offering a different vg diagram or evidence of his being wrong...

Fetzer is supporting and promoting the fraudulent lies of "pilots for truth" Balsamo's hoaxed evidence, in the form of a fabricated "vg diagram."

The diagram used by Balsamo/Fetzer:


Has been fabricated from an "example" diagram:


Taken from a web page on load factors from a ground school website for private pilots.


The more vexing question is: If Fetzer believes no planes were involved, why is he using fabricated evidence from a group that believes planes were involved to prove no planes were involved?

Very confusing.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Originally posted by JimFetzer
Did you even read my original post? I explained that I have even interviewed a fellow who had taken a course on holography at Cambridge and that he had assured me that, based upon his studies, it was technically possible. If you want to verify the same-number-of-frames argument, then do a single-frame advance and count them as the plane enters its whole length into the building and as it passes through its whole length in air. You really are here grasping after straws. I like your Bogart impersonation, but he would not have made silly arguments like yours.

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



Jim, you still haven't explained how a hologram can cause the whole building to sway abruptly to the north:





Regarding deceleration, there's more than one way to measure it. Counting frames may not be an accurate measure. Earlier I posted a video showing how a uniformly moving animated outline of the plane revealed detectable deceleration of the plane: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another way is to stabilize the plane in the frame and observe the movement of the building frame by frame. If the plane is moving at a constant speed into the building, this should be apparent also by the relative constant movement of the building in the frame which is easier to visually follow and mark:



edit on 22-2-2011 by brainsandgravy because: corrected photo



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Pilots has produced a five-part video study to demonstrate the problems with the
impossible speed under the title, "Pilots for 9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Attack".

The first segment is at www.youtube.com...

The second is at www.youtube.com...

The third is at www.youtube.com...

The fourth is at www.youtube.com...

The fifth is at www.youtube.com...

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



edit on 23-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
This is pretty bad. I have already addressed the Lear issue: the affidavit presents arguments
that explain why a speed of around 560 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude was impossible. That
the plane shown in the videos is traveling at an impossible speed is one of the arguments that
establish we are viewing some form of video fakery. The problem then becomes to explain it.
This is sufficiently uncomplicated I would have assumed even mister.old.school could grasp it.
Unless he can overcome those arguments, even he ought to simply concede the point. Either
refute the arguments presented in the affidavit -- which Pilots has also established, of course --
or admit that the plane shown in the videos for Flight 175 was traveling at an impossible speed.

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



edit on 23-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Thanks to brainsandgravy for providing another nice video displaying the impossible entry. In
order to create the cookie-cutter cut outs, which fans of Willie Coyote/RoadRunner cartoons
can appreciate, were not created by the plane as it entered the building, as brainsandgravy's
own video displays. They had to have been made using explosives in a configuration that was
too clever, because a real plane crash would not have created cut outs that looked like these.

reply to post by brainsandgravy
 



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


For being, allegedly, an educated person you seem to have a very ambiguous defintion for impossible. Exactly how did you, or anyone for instance, determine that Flight 175 having an impact speed of 500+ mph had the same probablility of President George Washington dancing the jig on the steps of the Capitol building this afternoon?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Pilots has produced a five-part video study...

For a "scholar" you seem to have difficulty comprehending the concept of singular piece of evidence. I asked for the one video (not a compilation or "September Clues" type of video) you feel best demonstrates your theory that no planes, but holograms, were used in the attack.

I fail to understand why you reference material from a source that assumes planes were involved, and uses radar data of those planes in their analysis. Holograms reflect radar now?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is pretty bad. I have already addressed the Lear issue: the affidavit presents arguments
that explain why a speed of around 560 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude was impossible.

I've looked, and cannot find where you addressed the "Lear issue". Specifically, why one of the nation's most-accomplished pilots, who has flown more types of aircraft than anyone else in history (including both a 757 and 767), would initially believe the high-speed at low-altitude was not just possible, but easy. He never said differently until he became involved with factions of the "Truth Movement" and received renewed attention and acclaim within that niche.



That the plane shown in the videos is traveling at an impossible speed is one of the arguments that
establish we are viewing some form of video fakery.

If you're using a source, "Pilots for Truth", who believes aircraft were involved and is using Newark airport radar data to plot the speed of said aircraft, how can you then conclude no aircraft were involved and "video fakery" was instead used by every source that recorded video of the attack?

The logic fails me.

You've also not commented on the false and fabricated vg diagram utilized by "Pilots for Truth". Surely such an organization could obtain the actual graph from Boeing?



The problem then becomes to explain it.

There is a bounty of information online (Egypt Air flight 990 for example) that indicates Boeing aircraft have, in the past, operated well beyond intended operational parameters for brief periods. 747's (larger but utilizing very-similar structural design) have been documented at exceeding mach 1.0 (at 10,000 feet) and 5gs during unexpected or emergency maneuvers. Surely your scholarly research has uncovered these types of events that would explain the possibility that operational parameters were exceeded.

Another explanation, which has been offered but ignored, is that the available data showing airspeed is wrong. Which would not be the first time that the somewhat antiquated equipment installed in airports have yielded erroneous data. In fact, if you were to speak with an air traffic controller, you'd discover that they always assume a margin of error for altitude and speed indications.

Additionally, as I hope you are aware, pilots learn that the vg graph information is not necessarily an absolute and actual operational limitations rely on a number of factors including weather, load, barometric pressure, etc. And I have been using terminology such as "operational parameters" because that's what it is, recommended limitations with fail-safe margins of error for pilots who wish to preserve the integrity of the aircraft. For pilots who care not of the aircraft's integrity, the parameters may be ignored and well-constructed aircraft (for which Boeing is known) may briefly exceed those parameters and remain aloft.




Either refute the arguments presented in the affidavit

An "affidavit" is no certainty of truth or accuracy. And given that there is proven fraud quickly discovered via a cursory glance at one piece of data provided by the "Pilots for Truth", I would assume the affidavit contains similar fraud, exaggerations, omissions, or lies. Once a source taints a data point, all others come into question.

Why shift the issue? Certainly a person with your experience on the subject matter can produce that singular piece of video evidence that best illustrates the theory that no aircraft struck the World Trade Center on 9/11?
edit on 23-2-2011 by mister.old.school because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


I'm sorry........WHAT????!!

To coin a recently introduced phrase, "That's pretty bad". Weak, weak, weak to keep using the red herring "argument" of "cookie cutter" to describe the impact point of the Boeing 767s into the facades of the WTC Towers.

Since, it is OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE that, in fact....the openings are NOT a cartoon-like "cookie cutter" outline of the airplanes!!!


The laughable comparison to "cookie cutter" outlines!
A cartoon outline example:




The actual impact point and resulting opening of United 175:



Upper left corner illustraiton, in image below, of Boeing 767 head-on profile outline. Compare to the impact opening, above:





It is painfully evident to all but the most seriously deluded that the penetration resulted in a combination of places where the central, most massive part of the airplane, and its KINETC ENERGY OF MOMENTUM pushed inward the disparate pieces and sections of the outer structure.....the wings, even outboard of the most strongly built sections (area between each engine) carried sufficient mass (and thus, kinetic energy of momentum) to also deform, and deflect and cause connections that existed BETWEEN individual exterior building components to sheer.

It is also painfully obvious that Mr. Fetzer simply has no clue. According to the "mondo-bizarro" world view of his fantasies, the Boeing 767s, amassing something akin to 300,000 pounds total weight each (includes fuel weight)....fuel, BTW.....a LIQUID, but nevertheless very powerful and densely effective, when in motion.....ever been to the beach, and had a large wave knock you off your feet? A wave travelling at, what? Say, only a few miles per hour? And, maybe how high? How high does an ocean wave, at the beach, need to be before you feel its fury very easily, and powerfully...even at its slow velocity....about the speed of a running man? Now accelerate that little wave to 500 MPH!!!!

But, a wave of liquid isn't going to make a punch into the facade of a building all by itself....(though, it might, if concentrated....as in those water-injected cutting machines that can pierce and slice through steel plates).

However, the same mass (liquid) within a container (the wing) AND the wing being edge-on (as opposed to "flat" on) in contact with the building? If you want to cut something with a knife, to you use the sharp edge, or the flat part of the blade???

Finally, "cartoon-cutout" meme nonsense:

A shotgun analogy. Fire the shotgun at a target, and note the pattern that results. Of course, each individual pellet is its own mini battering ram....but they will go through in a similar manner, and leave a hole that roughly resembles their pattern in flight. Try, instead, taking the same number of pellets in hand, and throwing them as hard as you can, at the same target. Can anyone see the difference, and the utter inanity of Mr. Fetzer's claims and assertions??

Let's use, instead of the shotgun (multiple projectiles) a single bullet comparison. Into a solid piece of steel....depending on material (in this case thickness) and overall kinetic energy of momentum OF the projectile....penetration through the material is possible. Surely, there is no one who will dispute this fact?

Does this bullet, upon contacting the steel plate mentioned above, suddenly stop, and then fall straight down, due to gravity?


This is, essentially, what Mr. Fetzer seems to believe should have occurred with the Boeing 767s, and he is trying (for what reason, I cannot fathom) to perpetuate this terribly ignorant thought. And,

...."that's pretty bad."
edit on 23 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


mister.old.school, I am of the opinion that this statement is factually incorrect:


Specifically, why one of the nation's most-accomplished pilots, who has flown more types of aircraft than anyone else in history (including both a 757 and 767.


That sentence was in reference to John Lear. In my online discussion with him, here on this Board (back in 2007-2008, before he stormed off in an ego-driven huff) it was quite evident that he had no actual hands-on experience in that family of Boeings.

One must be careful to differentiate his claims of having every FAA Airman's Certificate, and the fallacy that that implies having flown "every" type of aircraft ever built (*), or even in current service. (Obviously, not a feasible thing to accomplish).

(**) After a search, found one reference in an introduction to him, prior to an interview on Art Bell's "Coast to Coast" radio program, in 2007....the claim of having flown ~"160 different types of aircraft". That can encompass quite a number of vehicles, besides fixed-wing airplanes. Additionally, one could further "pad" the number of "types" by, say.....calling a Lockheed L-1011-100, an L-1011-200 and an L1011-500 all different "types" when, in fact, they are merely virtually identical versions of the same basic design. (I use the L-1011 specifically since I know for a fact he flew that). Also, have seen photos of him in the cockpit of the Boeing 707....of which, also are several sub-versions:



That photo, obviously, from MANY years ago!!! One way I know it's the B-707(**)the basic "Boeing design" is recognizable anywhere....other clues, such as the control wheel, instruments, etc.....IN any event, 160 different aircraft types is quite a boast....


(**)And, just checked the image source article, the photo caption there confirms a 707, circa 1976 when he was flying in Beirut.

One more interesting note about John ("King??") Lear ---- the Wikipedia controversy. He has no entry, there. Attempting to verify any veracity of his claims, RE: the FAA certificates held, and any other claims as well, is confounded by the many, many references that merely direct searches to his own personal aggrandizement sites....


Like I said above.....massive ego, and I would suggest keeping that in consideration when reviewing any and ALL claims made by the man.



edit on 23 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Originally posted by JimFetzer
Thanks to brainsandgravy for providing another nice video displaying the impossible entry. In
order to create the cookie-cutter cut outs, which fans of Willie Coyote/RoadRunner cartoons
can appreciate, were not created by the plane as it entered the building, as brainsandgravy's
own video displays. They had to have been made using explosives in a configuration that was
too clever, because a real plane crash would not have created cut outs that looked like these.

reply to post by brainsandgravy
 




Once again Jim--you dodge my questions. You were asked how a hologram can cause the building to sway violently to the north. Your red-herring allusion to looney-tunes is cute, but unrelated to the questions proposed to you. You also continually dodge the challenge that your "same number of frames" argument regarding deceleration of the plane is inadequate--an argument you've been harping on repeatedly, but fail to support as tenable.

Your impact hole "cut out" assertion as having been made using explosives also lacks empirical support. How could the complex features observed in the impact hole be produced by a "configuration" of explosives? For example, in the image below, you can observe that in one portion of the hole the aluminum siding covering the outer columns is severed and bent inward, yet the actual steel columns, though bent, are not severed. Explain how this is possible with explosive inside the building(after addressing my original questions which you seem to be unable to answer).

edit on 23-2-2011 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2011 by brainsandgravy because: typo



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That sentence was in reference to John Lear. In my online discussion with him, here on this Board (back in 2007-2008, before he stormed off in an ego-driven huff) it was quite evident that he had no actual hands-on experience in that family of Boeings.

Point taken, understood, and conceded. However, it appears the "Pilots for Truth" are enamored by his claims, and believe he has such experience. Taken at face value, such a group would certainly prop Mr. Lear on a pedestal as his claims would make him the most experienced pilot participating in their game of misinformation. Misinformation of which is clearly outlined by Lear's initial impression that a freshly-trained pilot with no airtime experience could achieve airspeeds in excess of 500 mph at extremely low altitude.

If Mr. Lear's claims are correct (and I feel safe in assume a large percentage is so), we can assume that the original seat-of-the-pants impression from a person with such experience to be accurate and reflect the experience of pilots who have stressed aircraft beyond typical operational parameters.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Excellent! Here's a nice gif compliments of mister.old.school. Just take a good look:



Now compare with with the images that weedwhacker has provided for us as well:



Does anyone notice that the damage seen in the second (after) image displays damage that is not seen in the first (concurrent) image, when the alleged cause (the plane) would have been creating the alleged effect (the damage to the structure) as it passes into the building? But the effect is not present when it ought to be. I congratulate mister.old.school and weewhacker for providing the ingredients for this excellent proof of video fakery, which is number (4) of my original five.

weedwhacker commits many blunders in comparing a flying beer can (which is mostly hollow) with a bullet or shotgun slugs (which are solid led). The wings, of course, are loaded with fuel and, had this been a real 767, would not only have broken off but exploded into flames. Yes, parts of the plane -- including its engines -- and its contents would have entered the building, but most of it would have crumpled, with the tail breaking off and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. The plane's velocity would have dropped to zero. It's not that complicated. And of course there would have been no cookie-cutter cut outs of the kind that weedwhacker has kindly provided for us, which are indeed on the order of cartoons. They played the American people--and weedwhacker--for saps, where too many of us fell for it. Fortunately, some of us can look at images and distinguish the real from the imaginary. This is a video fantasy.



Upper left corner illustraiton, in image below, of Boeing 767 head-on profile outline. Those who designed the impact explosions to create the fake impression must have reasoned like weekwhacker and taken most Americans to have no better understanding of the physics of collisions involving planes and buildings. A real crash would not have looked like a cartoon. Here's a link to some real plane crashes: webfairy.org...


edit on 24-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: tweaking a sentence

edit on 24-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: a few tweaks



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



The wings, of course, are loaded with fuel and, had this been a real 767, would not only have broken off but exploded into flames. Yes, parts of the plane and its contents would have entered the building, but most of it would have crumpled, with the tail breaking off and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground.


This is a joke, right? Please tell me your kidding and that you really do understand the physical world around you better than this.

What do you think that outside wall was made of? Never mind. Either you're having a little fun or it is actually beyond you.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Excellent! Here's a nice gif compliments of mister.old.school. Just take a good look:

I didn't provide the animated GIF of the impact on the south side of the south tower. You are mistaken.



Now compare with with the images that weedwhacker has provided for us as well:

Which shows the impact hole on the north side of the north tower.



Does anyone notice that the damage seen in the second (after) image displays damage that is not seen in the first (concurrent) image, when the alleged cause (the plane) would have been creating the alleged effect (the damage to the structure) as it passes into the building?

My first reaction to this comment is that, for someone claiming such an intimate expertise with the material, you failed to notice these are two different impacts. Therefore, we can conclude that your personal abilities of discernment, with regard to photo/video material, is severely lacking.

Additionally, the animated GIF is clearly using heavily-compressed digital video as the source material, which is somewhat sufficient for the intent of showing a decrease in the cameraman's rate of pan. If your ability to discern photographic detail was at a higher level, you'd not be comparing the observable detail between a compressed video frame (which shows the side of the WTC tower as a wash of gray) and a medium-resolution photo that clearly shows the exterior structure and some fine detail.

Your "latching onto" a lack of "alleged effect" in such a low-quality low-resolution series of video stills is pathetic and strong evidence of your desire to perpetuate a fraud in the same fashion as every other "no plane" charlatan before you.




I congratulate mister.old.school and weewhacker for providing the ingredients for this excellent proof of video fakery, which is number (4) of my original five.

Again, I have provided none of these items here. However...

If is your pathetic focus on blurry very-low-resolution evidence that has proven your willful participation in conspiracy fakery. Which, in my mind, is the most detestable thing a person can do in regards to the attack on 9/11. There are indeed conspiracies related to the events of that day that demand our attention, you are purposefully making a mockery of both the concept of "truth" and contributing to the denigration of all who are serious about uncovering the real conspiracies.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Here's a link to some real plane crashes: webfairy.org...
And there are plenty more. Google "real plane crashes".

reply to post by hooper
 



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Here's a link to some real plane crashes: webfairy.org...
And there are plenty more. Google "real plane crashes".

reply to post by hooper
 




And your point is? That planes crash? That they all look different? That there's someone out their that refers to themselves as "webfairy"?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
So weedwhacker mislabeled the North Tower impact as the South? Well, I show them both in "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", which I am confident you have never reviewed. It's archived on Scholars home page at twilightpines.com...

There are some differences between them, of course. Flight 11 only intersected with seven (7) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns, while 175 intersected with eight (8).

They were, of course, filled with 4-8" of concrete, which means that they provided massive horizontal resistance to the forward momentum of any flying object. Just think about the interaction between a Boeing 767 and just one of these floors were it suspended in space!

You call it an animation because of the vertical lines, I presume. But it is actual slow-motion footage of what, if you were correct, is an actual Boeing 767 effortlessly entering a massive, 500,000-ton steel and concrete building. If you think that's real, you are dumber than a post.

Since I don't think you are dumber than a post, you do not think that what we are viewing is real. Your purpose here appears to be to "put up a front", a false image, rather like your image as "mister.old.school--to promote obfuscation. Real "old-schoolers" advocate truth, not fantasy.

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



edit on 24-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: tweaking a sentence



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join