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: 26
11
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
What about the Norday Brothers footage?
edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


Norday?
I guess thats the first clue you're not very knowledgeable on the Naudet Brothers story and footage that contains evidence of fakery and foreknowledge.




posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please watch the Purdue video again, and listen to the narration:

@1:25. Again, @1:45, narrator says "...the two floors that sustained most impact damage...."

Looking again at the animation, you see the actual width of the

The "8 floors" claim is a distraction, and as I noted, and exaggeration....intended to continually cloud the issue, and "boost" the stance of the person arguing this "no planes" nonsense.

Sorry, but it IS nonsense.


that from someone who uses a CARTOON as evidence to support an argument based on an event that happened in the real world.


Hey WW, please show me where the Purdue ANIMATION was peered reviewed.

thanks



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
reply to post by backinblack
 


Okay so you guys think that the Norday footage is fake then?


Saying that there's irrefutable evidence of fakery, doesn't mean the entire footage has been faked.

However, as for the NORDAY footage, yes, its fake and doesn't exist.



Originally posted by Logical one
Have you actually seen the whole documentory footage that the Norday brothers made and therefore seen the 9/11 clip in context rather than just an isolated clip?


have you? and have you properly scrutinized it or examined it objectively?


Originally posted by Logical one
I have, and nothing looks fake to me,


Then I guess you didn't analyze all the footage at all, in depth, or properly.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


Just wondering...are you being intentionally obtuse, and disruptive? Or, is there a memory problem, on your end? Because, YOU participated in the thread where I answered these very questions....multiple times, in fact:


BTW, 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...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Yeah if I recall, you tried to address it but your attempt was shown to be another fail....fortunately for you, your friends erased the posts and any trace of the facts and evidence that debunked your attempts above. That censorship was quite shocking tbh from a forum whose motto is deny ignorance. Ignorance, ad homs and opinions are protected, but those speaking truth and supporting their arguments with facts and evidence civilly are censored? just wow.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Originally posted by dereks
www.popularmechanics.com...

so how is linking to a biased and well known disinfo magazine on the perp payroll, make it a credible debunking? ...

"Perp payroll"? "Disinfo magazine"? Your evidence please?

In my opinion, and experience with "9/11 Truth" and others seriously concerned with the potential for conspiracies associated with the events of 9/11, anyone using the term "perp" has immediately discredited themselves as one who jerks their knee in the direction of bunk evidence.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Huh????


....fortunately for you, your friends erased the posts and any trace of the facts and evidence that debunked your attempts above.


Whoa, get a grip!

Posts that were "erased" as you said, were identical to many, many, many, many, many others already up and available still for viewing in-thread!!! Because, each and every one of those (now banned) members? Was the SAME GUY!! (Rob Balsamo. The titular head of "P4T"....and just about the only thing running that freak show).

Sorry to say, all of your assertions are laughably incorrect. Rather typical, though, of a weak or non-existent "argument".



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
Then I guess you didn't analyze all the footage at all, in depth, or properly.

Based on your apparent familiarity with "all the footage", would you please provide one piece of video evidence (not an entire video production) that best illustrates the theory that no aircraft were involved on 9/11 over Manhattan?



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



that from someone who uses a CARTOON as evidence to support an argument based on an event that happened in the real world.

Hey WW, please show me where the Purdue ANIMATION was peered reviewed.


That CARTOON is very misleading..
Look at 1:40 and it CLEARLY shows the wings/fuel passing through the walls..
Love to know how they did that..


BTW, WW will deny that but it's clear as day in the cartoon..



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


Originally posted by mister.old.school
Based on your apparent familiarity with "all the footage", would you please provide one piece of video evidence (not an entire video production) that best illustrates the theory that no aircraft were involved on 9/11 over Manhattan?


Old-school, it's too bad your request will likely remain ignored. No-planers preach a good sermon, but the spurious "evidence" they stand on invariably crumbles at "free fall speed". I've yet to see ONE substantive or conclusive piece of video evidence demonstrating faked aircraft, "cartoons", or special effects employed by the news media in their coverage of 9/11. NPT arguments are consistently speculative, biased, highly selective, and inconclusive--or--are based on ignorance, false information, logic fallacies, and misinterpretation / misunderstanding of what they're seeing, (e.g., heavily degraded low-res video, compression artifacts, parallax, perspective distortion, etc.) I'm amazed that people on this forum still cite September Clues as a credible source of information--perhaps the worst, most inept and downright laughable piece of dis-info propaganda ever produced.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Lets put Jims video FAKERY nonsense to bed for any of his followers that think it was possible back then well


Have a look here this is the computing power required now for AVATAR.

www.datacenterknowledge.com...

A little text from that site for Jim and his followers to NUMBER CRUNCH ON.


For the last month or more of production those 40,000 processors were handling 7 or 8 gigabytes of data per second, running 24 hours a day. A final copy of Avatar equated to 17.28 gigabytes per minute of storage. For a 166 minute movie the rendering coordination was intense.


40,000 CPU 'S modern cup's not 2001 cpu's

So Jim back to YOU!



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

I'm not sure of video fakery but please tell how a grainy vid of 9/11 in anyway compares to the quality Avatar was filmed in?
Avatar was HD and 3D...
Quite the difference...As I'm sure YOU know..



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

I'm not sure of video fakery but please tell how a grainy vid of 9/11 in anyway compares to the quality Avatar was filmed in?
Avatar was HD and 3D...
Quite the difference...As I'm sure YOU know..


YES bib and guess what even with all that computing power we have now you can still tell when an image in computer generated.

We know it could not be generated real time then,we cant even do it now, also how could all the videos and pictures on the net within hours off the events be faked its just clutching at straws.
edit on 1-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AFAIK....firstly, John Lear seems to no longer be associated with "P4T". (In name only, but maybe he can't get them to take it down?). Remember, Lear was pushing the silly "holograms" and "moon-beams" --- sorry ---- "DEW" woo-woo junk.


which you nor anyone has ever conclusively proven to be junk. That it is, is nothing more than your opinion.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
When the only real person behind that little club was posting here, and spamming with the same repeat posts of their club's so-called "CV", his name was conspicuously absent. Even P4T founder (and apparently sole sock-weaver) Rob Balsamo hasn't seemed to jump on the "no planes" bandwagon....so, puzzled
about the "We" there....


NOT TRUE. Robs arguments were anything but spamming and from all I and others have observed, were unfairly censored using that as an excuse to discredit him in order to cover up the truth because you nor anyone were able to refute and disprove his arguments. Its really that simple... And anyone that reviews that thread objectively, will see clear evidence of this sites bias and attempt to hide the truth for you; one example being in the form of a classic disinfo tactic of "erasing the content".


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Secondly, no....the P4T nonsense has NOT "confirmed that it was traveling at an impossible speed".


YES it has. And if your argument was correct or refuted the evidence he presented, there would have been no need for him to have repeated the evidence you evaded and repeated requesting for which he was simply answering each time you avoided or demanded to see his evidence. Then lo and behold, he was punished for supporting his argument with irrefutable data and evidence that you and others either denied, evaded or couldn't comprehend for lack of real aviation knowledge.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
That malarkey only works on those not experienced in the actual airplanes (and a few mouthpieces, like "Kip" Wittenberg, "Rusty" Aimer and "Rotten" Ralph Kolstad...still haven't figured out their problems, and real deal....). Balsamo's cutesy (and faked, concocted, mashed-up "Vg Diagram" notwithstanding.....).


something you were never able to show to be wrong... in fact, it was shown you had no understanding of the VG diagram even though you claim to be an experience pilot. Why is that Weed? You still after evidence was shown supporting his argument, failed to refute that evidence or present any that supports your claims like the ones above.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Contrary to the BS Balsamo (and his sock puppets') claims, merely exceeding the Vmo (360 KCAS) or even its demonstrated Vd (420 KCAS)....[which he would never even address, ran away from that each time!]....would NOT cause instant "airplane-fall-apart-syndrome". Funny, I let him (and his puppets) stew, twist and spin for a long time....until I used the very source where he'd swiped the "Vg Diagram" from, (after he altered the speeds along the bottom), and the text that accompanied the original diagram, in the original source material, blew him up...and schooled him.


and i recall that he debunked and refuted those claims line by line with evidence and facts that were then erased or subsequently evaded by you... If you disagree, go right ahead and back up your claim that he didn't with a link to the specific portion and argument.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
(He LOVES to cherry-pick, when trying to "argue" his baloney claims....).


and that is nothing more than your opinion.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Furthermore, Balsamo, in his "spam-o-rama" fest, here, included what he cited as "examples"....other instances of extreme airspeed exceedances....and, again funnily, three out of those four airplanes all flew successfully, to safe landings, even after some structural damage. Only one that crashed (Egypt Air 990) did so BECAUSE the First Officer was trying to make it crash!!


And he addressed and debunked each of those points line by line providing facts and evidence to support everything he claimed that you only call spam to hide the fact you couldn't refute his arguments. The thread is there for all to see and I'd be happy to dig any of that evidence up... however since its dangerous and fatal evidence against and disproving you, i'd probably be censored or banned for doing so. How convenient is it that you've created a scenario that anyone presenting that evidence or any fatal to your argument, is under that THREAT. You make claims like the ones you are above, yet anyone that responds with evidence to disprove you, you call spam hoping they'll be suppressed so you can come back later and again claim that "there is no evidence"! LoL You win every time don't you? and can't lose. Anyone with evidence against you, all you have to do is claim they're all a sock of Rob and viola, you use that to avoid their arguments as if that somehow discredits WHAT they've presented... And this is the usual tactic used by the PTB to suppress and censor anything that is dangerous to their agenda ie NRPT. The funny thing is though, that not only is it obvious to anyone thats objective and does an in-depth investigation into all the evidence, but no real planes theorists grow stronger and larger in number all the time.

Why? because the TRUTH is on the side of NRPT and will always prevail.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, my (admittedly shallow) research into "Jim Fetzer" indicated to me that he is not a pilot...not mentioned, in any case....and certainly not an airline pilot. A "Jim Fetzer" who says he's experienced in aviation, due to the involvement with the Sen. Wellstone accident research isn't much of a resume'....one doesn't become that well versed in flying, airplane details and aviation complexities in that manner. Practical, hands-on years of flying experience is what gets the job done, there.


and those in P4T all possess such experience who disagree with your claims and validate Robs argument.

--snip rest of irrelevant rant and rhetoric--


edit on 1-3-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:53 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!!
s

It amazes me that people actually believe thats real, and the rest of the skeptics like mister old school try to use the "oh its due to compression, artifacting, pixelation and 3rd generation video " BS.
When it works in their favor and suits their agenda, you'll never see them utilize those excuses and line of reasoning.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

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...



Told ya.

But each and every one of these arguments has been addressed so many times, the denial and agenda is beyond obvious.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
... the rest of the skeptics like mister old school try to use the "oh its due to compression, artifacting, pixelation and 3rd generation video " BS.



BS?

?

Can you point to one, just one, "TV Fakery" piece of "evidence" that is based on original video obtained from the source?

Within all of the topics on this detestable hoax, I've constantly asked for that, and none has ever been provided.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
the "Nose out" was enough evidence for me. let alone all the questions raised after the fact about DEW's. These are facts that should not be ignored or shoved aside just because some feeble minds don't understand such technology.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
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?

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


and I've seen that argument rebutted over and over without any counter-argument other than a repetition of what was debunked.

Still waiting for someone to present any proof that nrpt theory isn't credible... with all the vehement denial and attempts to silence this theory alone, is evidence validating it or should make thinking people investigate more... which is exactly whats happening



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


that's exactly what intrigued me about this when i first heard of it a year or so back. I wonder if they realize that their voraciousness just increases our curiosity.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ivann1217
the "Nose out" was enough evidence for me.

I refer you to this post which shows the purposeful deception used to make the eject on the north side appear to be shaped as that of an aircraft "nose".

More detailed analysis also in this post highlighting the intentional deception of the "no plane" fraudsters.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join