Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

Nice posts, benoni! As you know, I have posted links to another slo-mo version, which is far better to study in relation to the impossible entry issue, yet some of the apologists for the government apparently don't want us to be able to notice the fantasy involved here. So I will reiterate the link to another nice study:

www.disclose.tv...

Originally posted by benoni
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f7f7babd7b6.gif[/atsimg]


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!!

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Thank you very much for the youtube link FD343.

1. Check out the five second mark on this video: the plane seems to be in such a hurry that it leaves behind the tip of its left wing. Of course, only to have the wing catch up with it in the following frame. Compression artifact or horrendous CGI?

2. Check out the left wing of the airplane as it passes by the brown building in the background. That's an awfully funky way for a wing to appear when it should be in the foreground. Obviously, the guy who did this CGI either thought the brown building was in the foreground or had a difficult time blending together the wing and skyline layers.

3. Check out the inexplicable amount of pixelation around the aircraft. If this is a video artifact, why is there no pixelation around the Towers, other buildings, the smoke or anything else in the entire shot? Last time I checked, video artifacts are not that selective. Point being compression artifacts are random and not as selective as they appear to be in this video, targeting only the moving aircraft.

In any event, this Artifact vs CGI argument can easily be put to rest by securing and analyzing the original footage, which would probably show the exact same "glitches", only more pronounced due to higher resolution. In other words, a snowball has a better chance in hell than the public has of seeing the original video.

edit on 8-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)

There are higher quality clips available. And the brown building IS in the foreground.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

Some of us have a far greater tolerance for fantasy than do I.

Now, now. Don't sell yourself short. You appear to have an enormous tolerance for fantasy. I mean, you believe that government gnomes projected holograms in broad daylight in downtown Manhattan onto the World Trade Center with such expertise that the witnesses could have sworn they saw scraps of an airplane laying on the ground!

Say it isn't so Jim!

Me thinks Jim you've been watching too many movies!..........they're not real my friend......they are only films!
You didn't think that "Men In Black" was an actual documentary did you?

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by ATH911
Was there any plane debris observed in either of the two WTC gashes, the one's that 767's supposedly caused?

.

edit on 8-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)

Not that I could see in the pics and why I called into question the other poster who posted pibs of the plane hitting the Empire State building..
As there was visible wreckage left at the entrance point..

BTW, no reply to that...How unusual..

Are you refering to me as I posted yesterday was on a business trip just flew back tonight, like I said the pics were posted to show that Jim and a few others on here have NO idea how the physics of this works.

A lot like your understanding of photography eh bib!!!!

Hi Jim and his followers if you think the aircraft could not have done/caused the damage shown here is something for Jim to explain look at this.




Its the impact of a fleck of paint on a space shuttle window its ironic its posted on a kids science site and having to use it to educate Jim certainly not a kid!

How do YOU explain that Jim in your land of make believe physics it would be impossible I mean paint against glass designed for spaceflight.

NOW do you finaly see your flawed logic or would you like to stand in front of a paint fleck with the same KINETIC ENERGY!!!!!

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by IwinderI also read in this thread that the flooring concrete is not a sturdy construction type but very weak, I never saw a link that said that it is weaker than the usual construction concrete.

The concrete used in the WTC was a lightweight concrete that is not considered structural. (Ie: Walls, or support columns)

wtc.nist.gov...

(PDF) Page 31-E 3.5
Page 141 5.4.1

Lightweight concrete uses flyash and pumice for aggragate as opposed to stones. It is used when it is not necessary to support large loads.

Originally posted by Iwinder
If the OP is correct in his statement of on acre per floor at a minimum of 4 inches then with 7 floors we are going to have 28 inches MINIMUM of concrete alone.

It is correct. But, he conflates repeatedly that the impact of the plane was not on the entire acre of concrete, but a small portion of it.

Originally posted by Iwinder
Now toss into the mix a huge amount of very top of the line structural steel and there is where my common sense tells me this could not have happened as is.

Good thing common sense doesn't qualify someone to design and engineer a building.

Originally posted by Iwinder
In the above situation I think even Weedwacker would have a hard time seeing blue skies again for it is not possible he would see the other side of the "floating/hanging in the sky 7 floors" nor would his beloved jetliner see the other side.

Strawman. Nobody claims it does.

Originally posted by Iwinder
Back to the flooring concrete, lets go with the unproved statement that it is not a very strong concrete but a sub par substance they use in all construction in NYC. (note to self do not buy a condo made of cement in NYC)

Strawman. It is used in some situations where the weight on the concrete will not be load-bearing. Meaning supporting a critical part of the building.

Originally posted by Iwinder
If it is one acre of cement per floor and I have yet to read that this is not true(Please correct me if this has been proven false) then we are talking a massive amount of cement, poor quality or great quality cement is cement and it is very heavy.

True, 1 acre per floor. But, regular cement weighs (On average) 150 lbs /cubic foot.

Lightweight concrete is usually 90-110 lbs/cubic foot.

This is a big difference.

Originally posted by Iwinder
Have you ever looked out over a 7 acre parcel of land? It is a big chunk of real estate and now imagine 4 inches of concrete covering the whole parcel, toss in some top quality steel per acre and some nuts and bolts and you have one hell of a death ship to airliners that stray near.

Couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Iwinder
Poor quality concrete will make no difference to a jetliner flying into it, as it is the mass that counts and the mass of the poor concrete should be very close to good quality concrete.

No, actually about 33% less. That is why it's called lightweight concrete.

Here is a good link.
Thanks for the link on the concrete Its very good, anyone here good at math? what would 7 acres of cement weigh at 100 lbs per square foot at 4 inches deep. I must say I am not a math guy ...:-) It should be obvious by now but I will keep plugging away here, so here is my next stupid common sense question.
At that thickness and weight what would the total mass be versus the airliner?

Also lets not forget the steel support beams and the outside structures.
Again thanks for the link and I mean that as it was a very good read indeed.
Regards, Iwinder


www.concreteconstruction.net...

There are higher quality clips available.

What good are the higher quality clips going to do? If we cannot analyze the originals, there will always be questions about authenticity. Now, in this age of digital video, how is one supposed to know definitively what evidence is original and what is fake, duplicated, altered, etc? We cannot. Hence, yet another of the many reasons to utilize digitally created and/or altered video for 9/11.

And the brown building IS in the foreground.

If geographically speaking, the brown building is supposed to be in the foreground, that is some rather awful background perspective work. Any artist will tell you that one of the most difficult things to accomplish in a piece of work is proper perspective. In this case, the visual results are totally off. Even the buildings look completely fake.

In addition, if the brown building is in the foreground, that does not really explain how the left wing of the plane reacts. The angles just don't match up. You're talking about a bright sunny morning here. That wing should be reflecting light, not going through all these weird lightness, darkness and opacity transformations.

Finally, the pixelation of only the aircraft in the video can be attributed to the aircraft layer being a lower resolution than the skyline. This was probably done to attempt to blur the airplane's details, since it was supposed to be flying at a high speed. Unfortunately, the airplane is still too clear. At 530 MPH and a stationary camera, that thing should have been a real blur. No way would you ever see all that detail. Just like that other absurd fake black and white photo of a crystal clear airplane approaching WTC2.

Which brings up another point? If everybody had their cameras trained on the Towers that day, where is all the photography of this second airplane hitting WTC2? How many credible photographs of the second plane have we been treated to? Yeah I hear ya, why bother with fake photos when everybody ate up the fake video. Right?

reply to post by JimFetzer


Hi Jim, as I'm a Brit I don't know if you or anyone else is too bothered about my opinion, but how all these people try to believe the "official version of events" is beyond me. Something is not right here, otherwise surely there wouldn't be all the controversy, at least.
1.] No other skyscrapers have ever collapsed as a result of fire. Fact.
2.] False Flag operations are documented reality. Fact.
3.] Most of the people of the West believe what they see on T.V. Fact.
4.] It is unfortunate in the extreme that alternative viewpoints don't get the air-time they deserve.
Keep up the good work, mate.
AND HOW DO THEY EXPLAIN WTC7 ??

Originally posted by mikey1966

1.] No other skyscrapers have ever collapsed as a result of fire. Fact.
N WTC7 ??[

No other Skyscapers made of the non conventional tube-frame structural design with sprayed-on fire resistant material to protect the comparatively lightweight structure, as opposed to the conventional heavy thick masonry for fire protection, has been hit by a commercial jumbo jet laden with fuel.

As for WTC7, did you not see the massive structural damage caused by the falling twin towers debris, and the big fires that raged in the building?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
A basic desideratum of criticism is to be sure you know the argument you are attempting to defeat. Why don't you explain my arguments and tell us how these videos are supposed to defeat them? As far as I can see, they do nothing of the sort, but there seem to be some who are eager to agree with you in spite of the evidence. Since John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and a study by Pilots for 9/11 Truth both support the impossible speed of the plane shown in the videos, how does this response cope with that question? The impossible entry in defiance of Newton's laws cannot be defeated by showing the plane entering the building in defiance of Newton's laws. So what exactly do you think you are proving here? Do you think the plane should pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? That implies that this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air. If you think this is a real plane, then my hats off to you. Some of us have a far greater tolerance for fantasy than do I. You may be the best example of living in delusion on this thread.

reply to post by brainsandgravy

 

Have you ever shown the math for this claim?

Again, since you seem to have conveniently missed it.

Do you expect to see any deceleration in 2/10ths of 1 second that would be measurable in 6 frames? (Approximate amount of frames filmed in 2/10ths of 1 second with a 30 fps video camera, which is what most cameras are)

Would you care to address that?

Originally posted by Iwinder
Thanks for the link on the concrete Its very good, anyone here good at math? what would 7 acres of cement weigh at 100 lbs per square foot at 4 inches deep. I must say I am not a math guy ...:-) It should be obvious by now but I will keep plugging away here, so here is my next stupid common sense question.
At that thickness and weight what would the total mass be versus the airliner?

Also lets not forget the steel support beams and the outside structures.
Again thanks for the link and I mean that as it was a very good read indeed.
Regards, Iwinder


www.concreteconstruction.net...

1 acre of cement poured 4" thick is 15,972

Times 100 is 1,597,200 lbs per acre.

Times 7 acres is 11,180,400 lbs

But, as I have said a few times, it did not imact the entire floor. It impacted a very small area in comparison to the entire floor.

It also did it with over a billion joules of kineteic energy. Which FAR excedes that compression strength of concrete.

reply to post by JimFetzer

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer
A basic desideratum of criticism is to be sure you know the argument you are attempting to defeat. Why don't you explain my arguments and tell us how these videos are supposed to defeat them? As far as I can see, they do nothing of the sort, but there seem to be some who are eager to agree with you in spite of the evidence. Since John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and a study by Pilots for 9/11 Truth both support the impossible speed of the plane shown in the videos, how does this response cope with that question? The impossible entry in defiance of Newton's laws cannot be defeated by showing the plane entering the building in defiance of Newton's laws. So what exactly do you think you are proving here? Do you think the plane should pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? That implies that this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air. If you think this is a real plane, then my hats off to you. Some of us have a far greater tolerance for fantasy than do I. You may be the best example of living in delusion on this thread.

reply to post by brainsandgravy

 

Have you ever shown the math for this claim?

Again, since you seem to have conveniently missed it.

Do you expect to see any deceleration in 2/10ths of 1 second that would be measurable in 6 frames? (Approximate amount of frames filmed in 2/10ths of 1 second with a 30 fps video camera, which is what most cameras are)

Would you care to address that?

FDNY343 is right. You can keep harping on your "same number of frames" argument, but frames of video are not a precise enough measurement to demonstrate variation in such high velocities. Perhaps there was measurable deceleration, but not enough to show up in a ninth frame. The video I posted uses a superior method--overlay an animated outline of the plane moving at the plane's speed prior to impact but remaining uniform throughout. Any deceleration of the plane can be observed within the given frames by the position of the plane relative to the overlay. Do you really need me to explain how this defeats your argument? The point is that it's false to declare that the plane moves with "uniform motion through both air and building". That cannot be determined by simply counting video frames and the video I posted indeed demonstrates measurable deceleration upon impact.


"9/11 Amateur, Part 2" is simply absurd in its claims. www.youtube.com...
There's no second explosion--Shack is confused by what he is seeing. What he calls a "second explosion" is nothing more than flames inside the impact hole coming into view as the initial smoke cloud is being blown away by the wind. The "penciled-in" gash allegation is total non-sense. The Naudet footage was aired long after the media's live coverage--none of which show the impact hole with the extra penciled-in "gash". Yet Shack believes that while all that footage was being aired, some secret conspirators decided it was a good idea to tinker with the Naudet footage in After Effects adding a needed extra gash, even though it would contradict all other images of the impact hole already aired and being replayed over and over. The video I posted was from the Jim Huibregtse footage which was filmed just after the first impact (before any news cameras) and clearly shows that the "gash" is black smoke pouring out of a hole on the western edge of the building. The smoke then dissipates and turns white. This footage was used in a National Geographic documentary, "Growing Up at Ground Zero", from 2003, years before Shack's "9/11 Amateur, Part 2" was published.


If you can't see the relevance of the south tower swaying abruptly to the north upon impact (kind of like "back and to the left"), then I can't help you with the third video I posted.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

There are higher quality clips available.

What good are the higher quality clips going to do? If we cannot analyze the originals, there will always be questions about authenticity. Now, in this age of digital video, how is one supposed to know definitively what evidence is original and what is fake, duplicated, altered, etc? We cannot. Hence, yet another of the many reasons to utilize digitally created and/or altered video for 9/11.

And the brown building IS in the foreground.

If geographically speaking, the brown building is supposed to be in the foreground, that is some rather awful background perspective work. Any artist will tell you that one of the most difficult things to accomplish in a piece of work is proper perspective. In this case, the visual results are totally off. Even the buildings look completely fake.

In addition, if the brown building is in the foreground, that does not really explain how the left wing of the plane reacts. The angles just don't match up. You're talking about a bright sunny morning here. That wing should be reflecting light, not going through all these weird lightness, darkness and opacity transformations.

Finally, the pixelation of only the aircraft in the video can be attributed to the aircraft layer being a lower resolution than the skyline. This was probably done to attempt to blur the airplane's details, since it was supposed to be flying at a high speed. Unfortunately, the airplane is still too clear. At 530 MPH and a stationary camera, that thing should have been a real blur. No way would you ever see all that detail. Just like that other absurd fake black and white photo of a crystal clear airplane approaching WTC2.

Which brings up another point? If everybody had their cameras trained on the Towers that day, where is all the photography of this second airplane hitting WTC2? How many credible photographs of the second plane have we been treated to? Yeah I hear ya, why bother with fake photos when everybody ate up the fake video. Right?

"What good are the higher quality clips going to do?" Are you serious? Wow. For one--test your own theory, " . . . this Artifact vs CGI argument can easily be put to rest by securing and analyzing the original footage". It can also be checked by comparing a higher-quality, less compressed, less degraded copy of the original footage. You question the validity of the video due to it not being the "original", yet you could never be assured of the authenticity of any purportedly "original" footage because you admit, "there will always be questions about authenticity". "Original footage" would be useless to you. Therefore, your "theory" is not falsifiable--any evidence presented in opposition to your point of view will always be deemed "suspicious" and/or dismissed as "fake". This makes your "fakery" theory illegitimate from a scientific perspective.

Regarding the brown building, I see nothing wrong with the perspective. The line of sight is consistent from that low angle. The plane appears as it should according to research with triangulation and 3D modeling by the likes of achimspok and others (see his youtube channel).
www.youtube.com...

Regardless, people see what they're inclined to see, so I know you won't be persuaded.

You say: "You're talking about a bright sunny morning here. That wing should be reflecting light, not going through all these weird lightness, darkness and opacity transformations. "

The plane entered and exited the shadow of the thick smoke from tower one. This is consistent with the other angles of the second plane.

You say, "the pixelation of only the aircraft in the video can be attributed to the aircraft layer being a lower resolution than skyline."
This makes no sense. Why would they use a low-resolution CGI aircraft? Check Ace Baker's fake plane complete with motion blur--there's no extra pixelation. www.youtube.com...
But it could be attributed to motion and "mosquito noise" around edges due to heavy compression which is a very common artifact.

Originally posted by mikey1966
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

Hi Jim, as I'm a Brit I don't know if you or anyone else is too bothered about my opinion, but how all these people try to believe the "official version of events" is beyond me. Something is not right here, otherwise surely there wouldn't be all the controversy, at least.
1.] No other skyscrapers have ever collapsed as a result of fire. Fact.
2.] False Flag operations are documented reality. Fact.
3.] Most of the people of the West believe what they see on T.V. Fact.
4.] It is unfortunate in the extreme that alternative viewpoints don't get the air-time they deserve.
Keep up the good work, mate.
AND HOW DO THEY EXPLAIN WTC7 ??

edit on 8-2-2011 by mikey1966 because: I thought of something to add.

I am a Brit as well mate re statement no 1

There have been steel buildings that have collapsed (not as high)with only fire as the cause there have also been PARTIAL collaspe of buildings were EXPOSED steel has buckled and collapsed under fire.

Also so you have to compare apples with apples HOW MANY OF YOUR BUILDING FIRES were started by a plane crashing into the buildings!!!!!!!!?

You see the main problem with the internet is that people whos only technical statement to others during the day is DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT sunddenly are experts in building design ,aircraft design and video anaylsis etc.

32 yrs in the building trade and I advise builders, archtects and engineers on the proper use of structural fixings.
I also test them on site sometimes to destruction.

So as you seem to be as misguided as most of the others that believe JIm why did counrtries around the world including the UK look at and CHANGE building standards/codes after 911.

Also as the second impact was caught on video/pictures by many members of Joe Public HOW CAN THOSE ALL BE FAKE!

Check back at Jims posts he makes many wrong assumptions of the PHYSICS of the crashes so I dont think he was actually taught ANY PHYSICS at school others posters here have done physics,applied mechanics,engineering science (the last 2 more specialized versions of physics) and engineering.

Look at examples given to Jim over the last few pages look at my paint fleck post a couple of posts above Jim claims soft objects cant damage hard objects (ie the planes would have not done what was shown) so the challenge is if that cant happen would you or Jim or any of the others taken in by his BS like to stand in front of a paint fleck with the same amount of KENETIC ENERGY thats if he(you) know what it is!!!!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Hi, thank you for your comments. I am new to this, so please excuse me if I'm not up to speed yet. Considering the whole picture of events on 911, am I being naive to question the version given by the major media? I am sure lots of opinions on the Net are ill-informed, but I can't believe what I'm told by my TV screen, not 100% anyway, so please let me know your thoughts about this. I thank you.
Mikey1966

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?


From those of us that worked in the media that day, my co-workers and I all say no.

And then we laugh at this junk.

This thread can now end, the question has been answered.

Originally posted by mikey1966
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Hi, thank you for your comments. I am new to this, so please excuse me if I'm not up to speed yet. Considering the whole picture of events on 911, am I being naive to question the version given by the major media? I am sure lots of opinions on the Net are ill-informed, but I can't believe what I'm told by my TV screen, not 100% anyway, so please let me know your thoughts about this. I thank you.
Mikey1966

these guys are spending alot of time and energy trying to convince you and sucker you back into the outright lie that is the official story, because you are new to the topic and may be more easily swayed by their jaded(if somewhat reasonable) arguements, but don't be suckered man. for me, and a growing no., 9/11 was a complete hoax with no terrorists, no planes and no victims. everything you see regarding that day has been proven to be computer generated imagery(sophisticated for the day) but not without hugh holes when put under the microscope. i became convinced utterly by

septemberclues.info...

for me, if you want to know the almost complete truth, you will take the time to go through everything that is written here, and judge then for yourself based on clear, irrefutable evidence where its all at.

reply to post by pshea38



IF you "became convinced utterly" by that piece of fifth made by "Simon Shack", then I fear for your critical thinking abilities.

Why doesn't the video in THIS POST: www.abovetopsecret.com...

...make any impression on you?

OR, the one by "Yougene Debs" at YouTube? He ALSO specifically exposes "Simon Shack" as a fraud, liar and con artist. Either "Shack" is those things, or he is just incredibly stupid. Take your pick:

Another weak mind who does not understand that a DENIAL is not an ARGUMENT and that, in matters as serious as this, no one should was their time with anyone who cannot provide LOGIC AND EVIDENCE to support them! Those opposed to video fakery are becoming more and more desperate in their ploys to distract attention from PROOF OF VIDEO FAKERY. 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 that I have archived here, and explained in detail by John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, in an affidavit I have also archived here; (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 with eight (8) floors of concrete on steel trusses, which would have provided enormous horizontal resistance; (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; (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, not to mention (5) that the strobe lights are not in evidence, where they should have been visible on the top and bottom of the fuselage and on the wing tips, but which are not there.

These features of the videos are inconsistent with the behavior of a real Boeing 767, but are easy to explain if we are dealing with one or another form of video fakery, which may have involved CGIs, video compositing, or the use of a sophisticated hologram. I interviewed Scott Forbes on "The Real Deal" (10 September 2010), where he had worked in the South Tower for three years prior to 9/11 and who observed the plane interact with the building. He told me--and you can hear it for yourself at nwopodcast.com... "the building swallowed the plane", which he found incredible. I also interviewed Stephen Brown (28 August 2010), who had just completed a course on holography at Cambridge, who told me that the current state of technology was consistent with the image seen in the video--which you can also hear for yourself at nwopodcast.com... Now given the evidence we have enumerated in (1) through (5), for example, the question becomes, "What hypothesis can provide a better explanation of the data?" If we are dealing with a real plane, then the probability of (1) though (5) approximates zero. (I would argue it is actually lower than zero, where zero probabilities are usually taken to be consistent with exceedingly rare occurrences, but since we are talking about violations of laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics, it would better be described as nil.) If we are dealing with an illusion, however, the the probability of (1) thorough (5) is very high. Since measures of evidential strength (know as likelihood) are equal to the probability of the evidence, if the hypothesis were true, and one hypothesis is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood. As long as a very high probability is higher than zero or nil probability, the fakery hypothesis has overwhelmingly greater evidential support from (1) thought (5) than the real plane alternative. If we take Scott Forbes' testimony into account, then it appears to be that the hologram theory is more likely to explain the data than the CGI or compositing alternatives, since they would not make the image of a plane visible to the public prior to its being broadcast. So the evidence supports video fakery rather strongly.

reply to post by Soloist

reply to post by JimFetzer


Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175:
www.911blogger.com...