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: 28
11
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
which has been addressed repeatedly and explained why its wrong and a faulty comparison.

Can you explain why?

Can you provide a video from the "no plane" fraudsters that is based on an original first-generation video obtained from the source?


can you provide a video from a real plane fraudster that shows a real plane and is based on an original first-generation video obtained from the source?

of course you can't... because the 9/11 videos showing planes contain fakery.

next...




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
..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!!!


Sorry, but No they weren't.

Your disinfo knows no limits does it weed. As I said, anyone that reviews that thread can see the posts weren't deleted, the data in them was erased. If there were real spam violations, there would have been
a stamp over them as well. There aren't.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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 WW... whether he was or wasn't is Irrelevant and you know it because WHO they or he were/was, doesn't remotely invalidate the evidence that was posted that debunked you which you nor anyone else was ever able to refute and disprove.


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


Yet the evidence, facts, and arguments they supported which you couldn't refute, prove otherwise.

All you have are opinions and claims how they were/are incorrect. Talk about a typical non-existent argument


and now, there's been an even more obvious attempt to censor and hide the truth of TV FAKERY and NRPT here illustrated by the moving of this thread to the hoax forum
You, mister old school, bonez and the rest of those in denial and hoping nrpt will go away must be ecstatic eh weed? It only shows the new level of fear the perps have of the NRPT and Tv fakery thats been growing more and more. The more its censored, the faster it will grow. But the irony is a double edged sword... this hoax forum defines itself as a forum for "proven hoaxes" when in FACT, the NRPT has never ever by any means, been proven a hoax. The double edge irony though is that 9/11 and the REAL PLANE THEORY has been proven a hoax, which means this forum is actually agreeing the theory of real planes proven a hoax by the NRPT, is in the hoax forum because its been proven a hoax.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

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.


and each of those posts, claims and disinfo pages, have been addressed, refuted, and debunked many times for which you and others have failed to offer counter-arguments to. So please stop posting those debunked links. Anyone reviewing each of the threads can find ample evidence that contradicts it as well as the many posts answering and addressing your "arguments" that you eventually disappeared from.

nice try though


edit on 2-3-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: edit



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

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.



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.


yes, the plane hoax is quite detestable. glad you agree mate.


and your request has been addressed several times in various threads you keep linking.

So can you prove the footage used to peddle the real planes hoax, is real, unedited, and from the original video source?

indeed, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...too bad those who peddle the original conspiracy THEORY about real planes hitting the towers, have failed miserably when challenged to do so.



edit on 2-3-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: edit



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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)


all of those claims have in fact been debunked since its a fact that what you say is false about video cannot be manipulated in real time. IT CAN BE DONE NOW AND THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT THEN ALSO EXISTED.

try again.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
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.


And i have yet to see one substantive or conclusive piece of video evidence demonstrating real planes hit the towers. Imagine that



Originally posted by brainsandgravy
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,


yet the evidence and facts have shown otherwise not to mention those who support the plane hoax are far more guilty of the above points.


Originally posted by brainsandgravy
(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.


which is exactly what those in denial or spreading disinfo to hide and discredit the truth about nrpt say and want people to believe. I'm amazed that people on this forum still use the fake low-res degraded compressed images from parallax impossible perspective distortion and locations from CNN and else where as evidence proving real boeing passenger planes were used on 9/11 at all.

edit on 2-3-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
and your request has been addressed several times in various threads you keep linking.

I have seen no such video offered. Would you be kind enough to facilitate expediency by linking to one or both of:
1) A no-planes theory video based on original source footage
2) A single video you believe best represents the notion no aircraft struck the towers



So can you prove the footage used to peddle the real planes hoax, is real, unedited, and from the original video source?

The proof that it is not the "real, unedited, and from the original video source" is overwhelming.



and each of those posts, claims and disinfo pages, have been addressed, refuted, and debunked many times for which you and others have failed to offer counter-arguments to.

I've seen no such counter.

How does one "counter" clear visual evidence that the "nose out" imagery used by the "no plane" proponents has been altered (heavily blurred) so as to create the apparent shape of an aircraft fuselage? (for example)

Again, for expediency, please don't just parrot "that's been debunked", provide us the links and/or information that substantiates your point.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
and your request has been addressed several times in various threads you keep linking.

I have seen no such video offered.


where did i say one was?


Originally posted by mister.old.school
Would you be kind enough to facilitate expediency by linking to one or both of:
1) A no-planes theory video based on original source footage


Until those who claim planes hit the towers can first show a verifiable unaltered original video and prove that all video's used to sell real planes show real planes and are real unedited from the original source, I'll be happy to.

In the meantime, the NRPt camp need only show that no conclusive original unaltered evidence or footage has ever been presented that proves real boeing planes were used anywhere on 9/11 and that no boeing 767-200 ie flight 175 could have reached and maintained its speed and hit the wtc.


Originally posted by mister.old.school
2) A single video you believe best represents the notion no aircraft struck the towers


Well, Since the NRP theory includes the possibility that a drone or missile struck the tower, your request can't be fulfilled.

But Can you prove the footage used to peddle the real planes hoax, is real, unedited, and from the original video source?


Originally posted by mister.old.school
The proof that it is not the "real, unedited, and from the original video source" is overwhelming.


Which supports the Nrpt and Tv fakery claim that there is no proof of real planes on 9/11... but then, please prove the footage used to sell planes is not from the original footage. And if its not, please show the original un-edited footage that proves real planes were used on 9/11. Be sure to explain the cuts and edits in the naudet footage while you're at it as well as the evidence of fakery AND that the naudet footage is not from the original source that is publicly available/released.


Originally posted by mister.old.school
How does one "counter" clear visual evidence that the "nose out" imagery used by the "no plane" proponents has been altered (heavily blurred) so as to create the apparent shape of an aircraft fuselage? (for example).


please prove the nose out imagery has been altered and/or that the nose out footage is not taken from original media broadcasts.

thanks



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
where did i say one was?

You said my "request has been addressed."



Until those who claim planes hit the towers can first show a verifiable unaltered original video and prove that all video's used to sell real planes show real planes and are real unedited from the original source, I'll be happy to.

In other words, no such video/evidence exists in the form of something based on original high-quality footage?

It is incumbent upon those making extraordinary claims to supply sufficient support.


The continued dodging of the issue of quality evidence by you and the no-plane hoax promoters is clear and conclusive evidence of your intent to spread fraud and lies.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, given we KNOW that the videos are fake, the question becomes HOW it was done. PVI is only one of many possibilities, where video compsiting, CGIs, and the use of a hologram are other alternatives. Personally, I find the weight of the evidence favors the use of a hologram. What is your explanation?

reply to post by wmd_2008
 




Well what do you know Jim I post a link to show PVI is not up to the task so you shift the goalpost!

Can you explain how the one engine from the Empire State Building crash went completely through the building in your best physics of course.
Come on Jim step upto the plate your supposed to be the physicist lets see an explanation.
Also explain how a DAYLIGHT hologram the size of a plane can be produced that is also moving.


Come on Jim lets see that PHd getting used or give the US tax payer a refund!!

edit on 2-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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)


all of those claims have in fact been debunked since its a fact that what you say is false about video cannot be manipulated in real time. IT CAN BE DONE NOW AND THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT THEN ALSO EXISTED.

try again.


Post a link to back your claim JIM lets see that in action BET YOU CANT



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Funny since truthseeker1111 joined not long ago all posts on 9/11 threads come on JIM you didn't need another membership we can prove you wrong with the one you have



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, my Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science, not physics. But you don't need a Ph.D. in physics to understand the absurdity of the situation. The alleged planes are supposed to have sliced through the steel-and-concrete buildings and created those cookie-cutter cut outs, while the smaller plane at the Pentagon impacts with the far softer limestone facade and we can't even find an impression of the plane! For more on the Pentagon, check out "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 1-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: tweak


So your NOT REALLY A SCIENTIST you have PHd in a place filling subject, you know one to get the numbers up for the Uni that explains why YOU DONT have a clue about what happened that day!
edit on 2-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


By the way have you had a look at this I can supply instructions if its to much for YOU!


edit on 2-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line and pic added



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I have already rebutted this on the "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11" thread. I don't understand why this thread has been moved. That would require begging the question by taking for granted an answer to the question at issue.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I have submitted the following protest to the executive committee of ATS:

subject: Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?
message: This thread has been moved the the "HOAX" section, which is absurd. Not only have I produced argument after argument that demonstrates the video has to be either itself faked or of a fake plane--which Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed in its latest video, "9/11 Intercepted", a trailer for which may be found at the Pilots' web site, pilotsfor911truth.org... , but they confirm (a) that the plane shown in the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower was traveling at an impossible speed, (b) that a plane flying at that speed at that altitude would have been incapable of controlled flight, and (c) that a plane flying at that speed and atlitude would have come apart and broken into pieces. Moreover, there are some 28 pages of discussion. Moving it to the "HOAX" section implies that the arguments I and Pilots are providing are phony, faked, or false, which is wrong. This appears to me to be a dishonest attempt to trivialize what I and others regard as one of the most important proofs that 9/11 was a staged event, including the use of a fake plane or of video fakery. Other indications occur at the Pentagon, where a Boeing 757 appears to have flown toward the building but then swerved over it at the same time explosions were set off. As I explain in my article, "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", they even faked fires to impress the members of Congress when the rumor was circulated that the Capitol would be next by creating enormous clouds of billowing black smoke from a series of huge dumpsters in front of the building. I am a professional scholar and this move is clearly intended to smear research on video fakery, where all the evidence is on my side, not that of those who think these videos are of a real plane. I invite anyone to simply read my introductory post if they have any doubt. I hereby request that this thread be restored to its original and proper position. Jim James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. McKnight Professor Emeritus University of Minnesota Duluth www.d.umn.edu...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I have submitted the following protest to the executive committee of ATS:

subject: Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?
message: This thread has been moved the the "HOAX" section, which is absurd.


After reviewing this thread some days ago, and discussing the situation with other top-management at ATS, we have come to the conclusion that the "No Plane Theory" in regard to the events of 9/11 over Manhattan is a intentional hoax in the same category as the "Billy Meier" case in UFOlogy.

Your evidence is lacking and fabricated. As has been pointed out by several members in this and many previous threads.

As a result, many existing and all new threads related to "No Planes" as it relates to the World Trade Center attack will be relegated to the hoax forum.

However, this is not to say the action is permanent. In the past, given fresh evidence, some topics have moved from the "HOAX" forum into the Skunk Works forum. If you (or others) are able to present compelling evidence that does not involve altered videos and/or imagery, we may consider such an action for this topic.

Feel free to continue the discussion, however, the topic will remain in the "HOAX" forum.


edit to add...


No chest-thumping, thousand-link posts, indignation, or other posting activity will reverse this decision other than new and compelling evidence as described above.
edit on 3-3-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I have submitted the following protest to the executive committee of ATS:

subject: Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?
message: This thread has been moved the the "HOAX" section, which is absurd.


After reviewing this thread some days ago, and discussing the situation with other top-management at ATS, we have come to the conclusion that the "No Plane Theory" in regard to the events of 9/11 over Manhattan is a intentional hoax in the same category as the "Billy Meier" case in UFOlogy.


Where it really gets ugly is who pays for this disinformation propaganda meant to discredit the truth movement from day almost immediately after 911?

Do you know that these people could very well be linked to the perps who executed the 911 attacks?

Did you know that NPT , missile pods, holograms, windowless tankers, space beams were all promoted by the same vile group who are also in cahoots with the people at Popular Mechanic which did a nice hit piece on those exact stupid theories called debunking 911 myths which also became the debunkers bible?

This is a serious charge. Those who have been intentionally smearing and hoaxing concerning the events 911 should be brought to some justice. Dont let this wound close. Tear it wide open.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
PLANE WITHOUT PASSENGERS: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11

All,

This is to mention that I will be broadcasting a two-hour interview with
Dean Hartwell, J.D., author of PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS, on "The
Real Deal" tomorrow evening from 5-7 PM/CT on revereradio.net. Among
the points made in his book is that, based upon Bureau of Transportation
Statistics' data, two of the four alleged flights--American Flights 11 and
77, which allegedly hit the North Tower and the Pentagon--were not even
scheduled to fly that day. There is no evidence they were in the air. The
show will also be archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com.... I believe
this is the first time that the scientific evidenced of fakery and research
on the planes and passengers has been presented together. If you have
the chance, listen to the show tomorrow or when it is finally archived.

Jim

i]reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



edit on 3-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: added a key sentence about United 11 and 77

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

edit on 3-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: tweaks for clarity

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



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
This makes me physically ill. I have spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning to find that fallacious arguments from those who do not care about the truth are given priority over objective and scientific research that has demonstrated--as conclusively as empirical claims can be demonstrated--that video fakery was perpetrated on 9/11 in the images of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower. To offer just one illustration, the plane shown in the videos was flying at 560 mph, which is impossible for a Boeing 767. This has been confirmed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and explained by John Lear, who, I am confident, are far more expert than SkepticOverlord or any other member of this executive committee. John submitted a sworn affidavit in a lawsuit in New York about this, which can be found at 911scholars.ning.com... . I cannot believe that any of them has even watched the Pilot's latest documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", pilotsfor911truth.org... , which demonstrates (a) that a Boeing 767 cannot fly that fast at 700-1,000 foot altitude, (b) that if a Boeing 767 were able to fly that fast, it would be unmanageable in flight, and (c) that if it were able to fly that fast, it would come apart physically. Their study leaves no doubt about any of these points. That should be sufficient for a rational mind to conclude that something is wrong with the videos. I do not understand what useful function ATS is supposed to be fulfilling if it will not allow objective and scientific studies to expose chicanery and fraud by the American government. These staged attacks has been used to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the US Constitution, as I have explained in "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?" Now I discover that ATS complements the deception perpetrated upon the American people. This has to be a political decision, since no one on this thread or elsewhere has shown that the arguments I have made are mistaken. As a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, who has published 150 articles and 29 books, I can assure you that they are well-founded and expose an especially egregious insult to the intelligence of the American people, who are willing to believe almost anything they see on television. As a former Marine Corps officer, I would not waste my time here promoting any form of fakery. Since it is not remotely rationally justifiable, it has to have been decided on the basis of social pressure; otherwise, ATS would be able to demonstrate what I have wrong. This is a travesty by ATS, because by making this move WITH NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION, it only serves to perpetrate the fraud. There is a hoax, but it has nothing to do with me, John Lear, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, or any of the others who have been doing their best to expose this deception to the American public. I regard this as a very sad day, indeed.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



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

edit on 3-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: tweaks for clarity

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

edit on 3-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: fixing a typo



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Just to mention that I will be broadcasting a two-hour interview with
Dean Hartwell, author of PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS,

Blind leading the bling, or collaborative hoaxers?

You've interviewed him quite often. I'm certain you're going to ask all the important and difficult questions necessary (that was sarcasm).

Perhaps you should be aware that the "no calls" nonsense in the above circle-jerk "interview" has been soundly refuted?


Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11 (preface)

My key determination was the significance of Bureau of Transportation records indicating that, of the four alleged flights, only United 175 and United 93 were actuallyscheduled and recorded as having taken off that day.

Are you aware that, at the time, flight data reporting to the RITA BTS was far from real-time, and not mandatory for airlines? The entire flight record for 9/11/2001 contains many large holes, with a significant number of scheduled flights failing to report as a result of the wide-scale disruption that resulted from the grounding of all flights.

If this is his "key determination," his research skills are either on par with yours (sorely lacking), or he is (as you always do) picking and choosing select data for the perpetuation of this detestable fraud of yours.
edit on 3-3-2011 by mister.old.school because: (typo correction)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join