A (botched) perspective on an old 9/11 video.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Again you jump to conclusions, what people believe is the impact of a projectile is part of the plane

Lol, but I never said that and I do not support that notion.

If it was doing 450 mph then that is 660 feet per second so in one frame that's 22 feet, now to give you an idea if when the nose of the plane hit the building was shown on one frame the next frame would be 22 feet along the aircraft so the FRAMES PER SECOND are very important to what you can see!!!

The frames still show an impossible situation. Furthermore, on YT I can scroll between frames and see it move less than 7 m between them.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I pointed that picture out on Page one.

I honestly think when it comes to many conspiracies the confirmation bias is so strong they will literally see what the want to see.

And they will argue about it until the end of time.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

As for the exact moment in the image, what is the front part of a plane else than a hollow tube with a rather light structure, materials like plastic etc. NOTE that midsection, the ENTIRE wing and and most importantly the ENGINES have not even penetrated the structure. You say it for yourself "parts of the wing" have passed the exterior wall. A plane is not a solid and rigid structure which would IMMEDIATELY create a big hole in those 1/100th of second captured in your image, those fractions of a second where merely a hollow tube and the beginning of the wing *have barely* penetrated...MIND YOU - A STEEL STRUCTURE. Planes are astonishingly light-weight (mostly), that just a side-note, and the impact and the sequence of events would be exactly what I would expect. Nothing to debunk here.

Almost makes ya wonder how it ever completely penetrated with even the wing tips punching holes and the tail section intact without encountering any resistance seemingly.

reply to post by wmd_2008


It's funny, I asked you this question but instead of answering it you start talking about "projectiles being fired from the plane", but you know damn well that it was not me talking about that.

But you do agree that it was higher than the towers 8 sec before impact? I mean it is safe to conclude that from that helicopter perspective.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


Seriously how was any of it CGI look at the number of videos shot from different locations around the city of the same event.

wmd_2008
reply to post by NeoParadigm

 

Seriously how was any of it CGI look at the number of videos shot from different locations around the city of the same event.

Is this an argument?

I don't see a logical reason why a diversity in videos negates the claim that they are cgi, especially when there are inconsistencies beween those different vids of the same alleged event.

NeoParadigm

Is this an argument?

I don't see a logical reason why a diversity in videos negates the claim that they are cgi, especially when there are inconsistencies beween those different vids of the same alleged event.

Here are the latitude, longitude, and altitude points for the last 12 seconds of flight for N612UA :

sec Lat. Long. altitude [m]
-12 040° 41' 26.60002 ''N 074° 02' 14.53943 ''W 695.48
-11 040° 41' 32.15081 ''N 074° 02' 07.00888 ''W 651.39
-10 040° 41' 37.70354 ''N 074° 01' 59.48523 ''W 607.26
-9 040° 41' 43.25822 ''N 074° 01' 51.96978 ''W 563.1
-8 040° 41' 48.81484 ''N 074° 01' 44.47021 ''W 518.86
-7 040° 41' 54,37956 ''N 074° 01' 37.00787 ''W 474.42
-6 040° 42' 00,26511 ''N 074° 01' 29.56831 ''W 436.56
-5 040° 42' 06,59033 ''N 074° 01' 22.10623 ''W 404.62
-4 040° 42' 13.15513 ''N 074° 01' 14.66429 ''W 375.17
-3 040° 42' 19.78176 ''N 074° 01' 07.29712 ''W 347.33
-2 040° 42' 25.81786 ''N 074° 01' 00.12639 ''W 316.55
-1 040° 42' 30.96785 ''N 074° 00' 54.77386 ''W 310.52
0 040° 42' 37.95093 ''N 074° 00' 47.47307 ''W 300.03



Here are the latitude, longitude, and elevation of the camera positions.



POV Latitude Longitude elevation
Fairbanks 40°42'34.92"N 74° 0'42.51"W 0.65m
Foreman 40°41'22.41"N 73°59'35.11"W 32m
Alonso 40°43'17.69"N 73°59'35.38"W 30m
Hezarkhani 40°42'7.33"N 74° 1'0.14"W 6.3m
Taylor 40°42'7.51"N 74° 0'59.89"W 6.3m
Chopper4 40°44'12.99"N 73°59'33.73"W 540m
CNN/WABC 40°46'17.56"N 73°59'9.31"W 145m
CBS dive 40°46'33.68"N 73°55'43.52"W 70m
Rocerny 40°42'39.42"N 74° 2'23.31"W 4m
Tina Cart 40°42'30.19"N 73°58'4.89"W 12m
Brooklyn Bg 40°42'16.10"N 73°59'38.45"W 1m
Devin Clark 40°45'4.03"N 73°59'32.70"W 67m
Chopper7 40°45'23.01"N 74° 1'3.78"W 400m
CBS GM 40°45'48.66"N 73°58'20.15"W 160m
Courchesne 40°42'31.62"N 74° 0'58.05"W 2m


Tell us which of these don't line up.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


So what?

you think the planes were faked?

reply to post by NeoParadigm


I have seen people BANNED from here for pushing the NO planes CGI BS tell the people below the event there was no plane.

reply to post by wmd_2008

I have seen people BANNED from here for pushing the NO planes CGI BS tell the people below the event there was no plane.

Maybe you can ask SO if he wants to ban me.

I don´t see the relevance of that particular vid, none of those people even mention a plane. If you can get a hold of them then I would love to talk to them.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

you think the planes were faked?

Very perceptive! What gave it away?

reply to post by waypastvne


For starters the Brooklyn Bridge shot and one of the helicopter shots, like I already posted in this thread.

There are more inconsistencies between several vids besides flight path inconsistencies.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


The video was just to show one of many from different areas of the event it's not CGI and never was!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


You are really reduced to psychological emo arguments and empty opinionated drivel, aren't you?

Yes you are.

It seems you specifically mentioned those people in that vid as if they were key witnesses to a plane crash, but now it is just an example.....

Also, I already pointed out to you that the fact that there are different vids from different locations, does not refute the claims of CGI whatsoever.

Why do you keep using this invalid argument?

reply to post by NeoParadigm


Just to help your reading comprehension do those people in that video look like they are BELOW the event!!!

wmd_2008
tell the people below the event there was no plane.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Just to help your reading comprehension do those people in that video look like they are BELOW the event!!!

If they aren't then I don't know why you chose that video to accompany your post. Backtracking much?

reply to post by NeoParadigm

You're wrong. Achimspok speaks English as a second language. Perhaps his words in the description are confusing you, but they shouldn't. All you have to do is WATCH the video. What it clearly shows is that there are NO discrepancies in the flight path of UA175 among the existing camera angles. How do you ignore the geo-referenced flightpath in the 3D model matching perfectly with ALL the various camera angles?

Achimspok calculated the flight path on his own using various camera angles to triangulate the plane's position in space and time for every second of the last 12 seconds prior to impact. There are NO discrepancies in the video footage. What he's saying is that the various DESCRIPTIONS of the flight path found in official reports contain discrepancies, which is why (if you keep reading) he says:

"The high decorated MIT described it but used a method that added failure on failure (horizontal path, straight path, POV rectangular, Doppler effect...). Every conclusion was the assumption for the next conclusion (and so on) and increased the error of the result.
Finally, the MIT result of 503 mph had an error of about 100mph. The NIST result was about 50mph better but still bad. Btw, they estimated the overground speed of a straight line - no wind, no descend, no turn... The reality looked a bit different."

So again, the discrepancies to which he's referring are in published descriptions, NOT in the video footage (which is CLEARLY shown in the video).

Nice try though.

gladtobehere

What do you guys make of this video and the assertion that the plane's wing should not have disappeared behind that building.

The building is clearly in the foreground.

NeoParadigm
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

you think the planes were faked?

Very perceptive! What gave it away?

The reason I was actually asking you if you believed in the "no planes" theory was because I personally refuse to even enter into any debate about "no planes" in any debate regarding 9/11 because I think it is so hurtfully disrespectful to the dead. It sickens me to my stomach that it has became OK now to say whatever the hell you like about 9/11 online with out any regard to how it will hurt the victims families. How would you feel if I was running rampant online saying that your last conversation with your son or wife was a lie?

The second reason I refuse to discuss it is because frankly I am not stupid enough to be able to lower myself to debating such a absurd notion. A IQ of about 10 and a working eye should tell you that planes did hit the buildings and that they were not faked so if someone can't even accept from a starting point that yes planes did hit the buildings then I dont see any point in debating the point with that person because there is no way I am going to get a intelligent response.

"no planes" are the lowest of the low when it comes to 9/11, I have explained my position on this and for the reasons outlined above please do not expect me to continue any further discusion with you regarding "no planes" in this thread.

wmd_2008
reply to post by NeoParadigm

 

I have seen people BANNED from here for pushing the NO planes CGI BS tell the people below the event there was no plane.

edit on 29-9-2013 by wmd_2008 because: better video added

9/11 featured plenty of actors and acted out scenes.
there were no plane crashes and the fact that you and ats are
threatening a banning for considering the cgi reality of the
tv day shouts volumes.

these type videos trickled out over the space of the last 12 years, plenty
of time for the choreographers and cgi designers to improve on the
utter bs they produced back before 2001.

the game is almost up wmd. you won't have to continue lying for much longer.
I know you don't like to, really.