Absolute proof of video fakery

[mchapman]

Until I saw this video I thought video fakery was ridiculous

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

but this video proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!

[Mince]

Fakery? If there was fakery, certainly the buildings should still be standing...yes?



You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!



Perhaps; but by whom? You know, thanks to the proliferation of computer technology, even the common citizen has access to complex editing devices, don't you? And you do realize that some unscrupulous individuals might take advantage of their access to editing devices to further their beliefs, don't you?

Look, God damnit! Some people place entirely too much faith and emphasis on YouTube videos. Stop it, already! Stop it!

[mchapman]

Fakery? If there was fakery, certainly the buildings should still be standing...yes?





Perhaps; but by whom? You know, thanks to the proliferation of computer technology, even the common citizen has access to complex editing devices, don't you?

Watch the video all the way through. Its only about 6 minutes long. It is irrefutable unless the maker has altered the naudet footage and I don't think he has.

[johnny karate]

The Naudet brothers were with members of the FDNY when this supposedly doctored footage was shot. Your "absolute proof" renders them complicit as there has been no one from the FDNY to come forward and either confirm what that video alleges, nor claim that the Naudet brothers were with impostors.

Do you believe members of the FDNY to be complicit in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy?

If not, then how do you reconcile their involvement in the video you linked?

[Slayhamlet]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg

[mchapman]

The Naudet brothers were with members of the FDNY when this supposedly doctored footage was shot. Your "absolute proof" renders them complicit as there has been no one from the FDNY to come forward and either confirm what that video alleges, nor claim that the Naudet brothers were with impostors.

Do you believe members of the FDNY to be complicit in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy?

If not, then how do you reconcile their involvement in the video you linked?


Address the video or pipe down.

[Mince]

And for the record, mchapman, the video is too distant and blurry to make any kind of rational determination.

P.S.

I did watch the whole video.

[1337m4n]

Until I saw this video I thought video fakery was ridiculous

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

but this video proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!

I can't wait for someone to use the same procedure to "prove" that the State of the Union address was actually delivered by a trained penguin.

[mchapman]

And for the record, mchapman, the video is too distant and blurry to make any kind of rational determination.

P.S.

I did watch the whole video.


No you didn't.

The video is plain as day, and just look at the comparison to the news footage 15 minutes later.

[Mince]

It is irrefutable unless the maker has altered the naudet footage...

Which is entirely possible...and my point.


and I don't think he has


Could you please tell me the basis for your finding?

[1337m4n]

Watch the video all the way through. Its only about 6 minutes long. It is irrefutable unless the maker has altered the naudet footage and I don't think he has.

http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/item/8000/7606/2590-deadpool_400.jpg

[mchapman]

Which is entirely possible...and my point.





Could you please tell me the basis for your finding?

Because it looks the same as other naudet footage. Unless you can prove he has altered it?

[Mince]

No you didn't.


YES, I DID! Thank you for presuming to know what I know.


The video is plain as day...

No, it's not. It's about as plain a fog on a foggy day. If you can make a determination from this video, you are only comfirming what you expected to find...or an idiot.

[Mercutio]

Wow.

I assume you have put this through the same intense scrutiny as you did any of Gravy's information.

Which experts would you ask, in order to evaluate the claims in this video?

[Mince]

Notice the title of the video is...ironically, and fittingly..."9/11 Amateur."

[HyJinX]

HA HA HA HA!!!!! Idiot.

[fullflavormenthol]

Okay. So let me get this straight. The "absolute" proof is this video? And all the proof rests solely on a non-experts opinion of what should have happened?

First, if special effects were used it would be even more easy to detect them. How about getting a high quality version of the sequence. Then take a still frame of the gash and analyze the pixels in a image editor. If it was "photoshopped" than it would have no variance in pixels. Even the best artists can't fake the randomness.

Secondly, if again special effects were used. Why does this guy believe that these artists. Seemingly faking this video would not know how explosions work? I mean if you are going to fake something you research how it behaves. You want to simulate water...you watch how water behaves.

Third, he suffers from the same mistaken belief as many truthers. That the WTC was a 100% dense object without space in it; which is wrong..there was lots of space in it. Meaning things can travel through it, if they have enough force to break through the materials. Which of course have space in them.

Forth, the gash is in the other videos. I don't understand how this guy missed it. Do you want to know why he missed it. Because he was so busy looking to find evidence of fakery that he never comprehended the idea that shadows are perceived differently from different angles. Meaning the Naudat footage is from bellow catching the shadow where the face of the WTC was made uneven from damage, whereas the other footage is more straight on. Meaning the shadow in those shots isn't pronounced, but the damage is still visible if you actually look. Ironically he points to it while saying it isn't there.

Fifth, and this it the most important thing....THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF EYE WITNESSES TO THE EVENT!!!!!!!!!!!

"irrefutable" is not the word I would use to describe this dudes presentation, given that I can already poke holes in it through just a casual viewing.

Go back the drawing board and try again. Thank you.

[mchapman]

Wow.

I assume you have put this through the same intense scrutiny as you did any of Gravy's information.

Which experts would you ask, in order to evaluate the claims in this video?


I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

Which experts do you ask when you are determining the color of the sky?

It is totally plain to see what is going on in the video.

[Wolfman]

Address the video or pipe down.
Ah, there's brilliant thinking.

A valid point is raised -- there were firefighters with the people who filmed this video, who witnessed the whole thing. Surely, had they witnessed something different than what is in the video, or felt the video had been edited, they'd say something. Yet none of them have done so. Add to that the fact that, besides the video evidence, you have the testimony of hundreds of people who state that they did, in fact, see a plane. Add to that the fact that the people who were on the 'faked' plane were real people, and really did disappear (as their grieving families will testify).

But, in the normal manner of the dedicated truther, you latch onto one tiny item, and absolutely refuse to address any other issues or objections.

To accept your theory, I would first have to accept that hundreds of eye witnesses are wrong, or lying. I would first have to accept an incredible conspiracy of literally thousands of people, most of them average Americans, some of who actually saw their loved ones off at the airport, saw them get on the plane, and whose loved ones have never been seen again.

So...where did that plane go? Radar tracks it, from its takeoff to its crash...surely, had it been diverted, that would have been noticed? And then what happened...they landed the plane at a secret airport somewhere, and massacred everyone on board?

You see, the problem here is that I'm faced with two questions, two possibilities:

1) That an entire plane, and hundreds of people on that plane, disappeared without anyone at all knowing how or where. That people who actually witnessed the event, and swear to seeing a plane, are wrong or lying.

2) That one single YouTube video, that is not at all clear, and represents only one of many videos of this tragedy, is wrong.

Thing is, the former is far, far harder for me to believe, or explain, than the latter. So there is really little or no purpose in discussing the latter, unless/until you can come up with adequate, reasonable answers to the former.

I'd point out that the families of those who died on that flight will consider their evidence of the losses they have suffered to be far, far more conclusive than a blurry YouTube video. And it is shameful that someone like you, in playing amateur detective, implicitly belittles or denies the honest testimony of literally thousands of Americans who suffered as a result of this event -- the Americans who testified that they saw an actual plane fly into the building; the Americans who testify that they saw their loved ones get onto the plane in question, and never saw the plane or their loved ones again.

So let me go back to your first quote, and tell you that it is you who had better pipe down, until such time as you can provide adequate answers to those questions, and have a reasonable reply to those people.

[Mince]

Look, mchapman, I'll give you that it does seem to be improbable serendipity that someone happened to film the first strike. The second strike...no way, because the second tower is right next to the first tower and all cameras in NYC were trained on the first tower after the first strike. But, in order to believe what you are seemingly professing, that at least part of FDNY and the Naudet brothers knew the strike was going to happen, you'd have to believe that the person who effected the attack wanted the FDNY and Naudet brothers to know so they could capture it on camera. Why someone would want their criminal activities captured on camera is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps you could devise some story to explain away this conundrum.

[johnny karate]

Address the video or pipe down.

I did address the video.

Clearly, the FDNY participated in it.

I'm asking you to reconcile that with what you think their participation may have been in the overall conspiracy you believe took place.

It's not a very difficult request, and I'd like to see if you've the stones to address the inconvenient implications of your claims, or if you're just another intellectually dishonest blowhard.

[Mince]

I can't wait for someone to use the same procedure to "prove" that the State of the Union address was actually delivered by a trained penguin.


George Bush is trained, though...isn't he?

[mchapman]

I did address the video.

Clearly, the FDNY participated in it.

I'm asking you to reconcile that with what you think their participation may have been in the overall conspiracy you believe took place.

It's not a very difficult request, and I'd like to see if you've the stones to address the inconvenient implications of your claims, or if you're just another intellectually dishonest blowhard.

So you agree the video has been faked?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Until I saw this video I thought video fakery was ridiculous

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

but this video proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!


At 2:29 he claims that the "primary explosion burns out" when it very clearly has not. He's an idiot.

[Pardalis]

The video talks of secondary explosions, but you forget that the whole thing lasts in reality 1 second, so it's really the one same explosion which is propagating.

And about the gash being "painted in", it could be anything, a digital artifact of somekind.

[HyJinX]

I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

Which experts do you ask when you are determining the color of the sky?

It is totally plain to see what is going on in the video.

Your eyes don't count in anything, lil' buddy. We don't care. How about this...you tell us what's compelling, at what time during the video, and why...and then we'll take it into consideration. Detail your issue, what time during the video, why you think it's an issue and the reason you find it puzzling...and we'll take it under scrutiny. Nothing less makes you as empty as all the rest of you posts this evening.

Thanks.

[1337m4n]

Which experts do you ask when you are determining the color of the sky?



Interesting question.

Let us suppose you are colorblind, and have been that way for your entire life. As for determining the color of the sky, you would have to options:

1) Make a wild guess based on "intuition".

2) Consult someone who is NOT colorblind.


Now, which experts do you ask when you are determining what an "explosion" is "supposed to" look like?

[WildCat]

What's really funny about that video is the way they compare a really low-res video with another low-res video and note the differences... how mind-boggling stupid do you have to be to fall for that crap?

[mchapman]

The video talks of secondary explosions, but you forget that the whole thing lasts in reality 1 second, so it's really the one same explosion which is propagating.

And how does that black gash propagate 15 seconds later?

[Myriad]

The funny thing is, the horizontal "gash" (which of course is not a gash, but a row of windows blown out by the deflagration) is clearly visible in several of the places where the video is saying "look, no gash in this view!"

Given that the windows were recessed behind the perimeter columns and the aluminum facade, might a row of blown-out windows look different (e.g. much darker than the surrounding wall, versus only slightly darker than the surrounding wall) from different directions, depending on the whether or not angle of the view affords a direct line of sight to the plane of the windows? And/or whether or not the angle of the view relative to the angle of the light allows empty window frames to reflect light differently than the surrounding still-intact windows?

Or is Photoshop the only way something could ever look different when photographed from different angles? (Answer provided for those who believe everything they are told by YouTube video captions: no.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Mince]

I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

You know, your eyes are essentially nothing but gelatinous orbs or non-thinking biological tissue with absolutely no capacity for thought or interpretation...don't you? Sure, they see, and you might think they are ultra-powerful...but they really don't have the capacity for thought. They only record, it's your brain which "thinks". I use quotation marks because, in your case, the matter is dubious.

[Pardalis]

And how does that black gash propagate 15 seconds later?

The video does not state this.

The whole jet ramming into the building and subsequent explosion must last a few three seconds at best.

[HyJinX]

How sad. Does anyone wanna guess at McStupid's sock puppet?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

At 2:29 he claims that the "primary explosion burns out" when it very clearly has not. He's an idiot.


Also, his "secondary explosion" is the fire erupting from the impact hole, which would be very clear if he had continued that segment. Again, he's an idiot. A deceptive idiot.

[Mince]

First, if special effects were used it would be even more easy to detect them. How about getting a high quality version of the sequence. Then take a still frame of the gash and analyze the pixels in a image editor. If it was "photoshopped" than it would have no variance in pixels. Even the best artists can't fake the randomness.


You technical guys so confound my conspiracy. Damn you!

[mchapman]

What's really funny about that video is the way they compare a really low-res video with another low-res video and note the differences... how mind-boggling stupid do you have to be to fall for that crap?

Try this one.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/1C074ED750694730BF1F536A0950A502/911-amateur-part2.aspx

The source video is not low res.

[beachnut]

Until I saw this video I thought video fakery was ridiculous

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

but this video proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!
Are you this gullible? Dumbest video yet. Great find, how dumb can the truth movement get?

Are you always wrong, or you are new to not getting anything right on 9/11? So far you are doing perfect, no evidence presented on all your posts.

Your stuff is refuted, don't try again unless you have some new stuff, it makes you look gullible and lacking knowledge.

The guy that did that video is terminally stupid. Great find, pure stupid on 9/11. You understand how stupid it was, or are you a truther, a terrorist apologist person?

[1337m4n]

mchapman, what's this?

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Pentagon_engine_photo350.jpg

[Mince]

It is irrefutable unless the maker has altered the naudet footage...


Meaning, it's refutable. **emphasis added


and I don't think he has


Because you can read minds...of course.

[HyJinX]

You technical guys so confound my conspiracy. Damn you!

Bitches.

[1337m4n]

Try this one.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/1C074ED750694730BF1F536A0950A502/911-amateur-part2.aspx


It's the same video. The quality isn't any better.

Demonstrate that you understand your stuff: get a high-quality video and point out the anomalies using screencaps.

[mchapman]

It's the same video. The quality isn't any better.

Demonstrate that you understand your stuff: get a high-quality video and point out the anomalies using screencaps.

No, the quality is far better on live video.

[Pardalis]

Try this one.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/1C074ED750694730BF1F536A0950A502/911-amateur-part2.aspx

The source video is not low res.

The part about the man's strange iris shows exactly what I meant by digital artifact. but of course the paranoid author of the video interprets any strange visual anomaly as part and proof of a cover-up.

Laughable.

[Pardalis]

No, the quality is far better on live video.

It's still not "high res". To post a video on the internet you have to compress, and when you do that, strange artifacts are bound to happen.

[HyJinX]

No, the quality is far better on live video.

Fail..yet again. You really suck at this, man. You need to compress.

You failed at other threads...and now fail at this one. What's next?

ETA: what pardalis said.

[WildCat]

And how does that black gash propagate 15 seconds later?
It's not a gash, it's the result of multiple compressions of the video to such an extent all the detail is lost.

Ever wonder why no-planers always use the crappiest videos they can find to prove their point?

Oh yeah, and thousands of people saw the planes hit... :rolleyes:

[mchapman]

It's still not "high res". To post a video on the internet you have to compress, and when you do that, strange artifacts are bound to happen.

Please point out the artifacts.

[Pardalis]

Please point out the artifacts.

I just told you the part about the man's iris is surely one.

[mchapman]

It's not a gash, it's the result of multiple compressions of the video to such an extent all the detail is lost.

Ever wonder why no-planers always use the crappiest videos they can find to prove their point?

Oh yeah, and thousands of people saw the planes hit... :rolleyes:

Multiple compressions? The gash is there on every version of naudet I have seen.

[johnny karate]

A little cursory research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_(film)) reveals that aside from the firefighters actually shown in the footage, the film to which it was a part was co-directed by a firefighter, and had the full participation of Engine 7, Ladder 1 of the FDNY.

Curiously, none of them have come forward to support the allegations that the footage was altered.

Now that mchapman is on record proclaiming fakery of a 9/11 video made by and with the cooperation of the FDNY, we can add him to the long and not so distinguished list of Truthers who slander the FDNY in their hilariously determined quest to deny reality.

Way to go, champ.

[HyJinX]

It's not a gash, it's the result of multiple compressions of the video to such an extent all the detail is lost.

Ever wonder why no-planers always use the crappiest videos they can find to prove their point?

Oh yeah, and thousands of people saw the planes hit... :rolleyes:

What's funny is seeing the lowest level of truther come here with the bravado of a truther who brings crap he/she thinks has never been presented before. It's funny to see them bang thier heads against a wall of logic and still never realize they've been discovered even before they arrived. It's so entertaining to watch. Yes, McCheese...we've seen your kind before. You're nothing new.

[mchapman]

I have just looked on the 9/11 DVD and the gash is there. It is no compression artifact.

[WildCat]

OK, I have a confession to make now that the cat's out of the bag... the Eagles really did make that touchdown on 4th down against the Bears last night, but since I'm a Bears fan I had the video fakery department here at the NWO fake the video to make it appear the Eagles didn't score. We told Donavan McNabb et al that if they said anything we'd fire them and take their pensions away if they spoke out.

It's good to be the NWO Master Conspirator!

[mchapman]

OK, I have a confession to make now that the cat's out of the bag... the Eagles really did make that touchdown on 4th down against the Bears last night, but since I'm a Bears fan I had the video fakery department here at the NWO fake the video to make it appear the Eagles didn't score. We told Donavan McNabb et al that if they said anything we'd fire them and take their pensions away if they spoke out.

It's good to be the NWO Master Conspirator!

Why did you claim the gash was a compression artifact when in fact it is on a DVD of 9/11?

[Pardalis]

It also depends on how the author of the video got his material. I saw a downloaded version of "Lambs for Lions" the other day from Netflix, and it had many artifacts, little missing pixels in the image during the thransfer, including a shot when Robert Redford suddenly has a spooky reptilian eyes for a few frames.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/Image1-1.png
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/Image2.png
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/Image3.png
(these are not altered by me, they are screen captures from what I downloaded)

So if the author downloded his source material from something like Netflix, the same thing could have happened.

Now I'm not exactly sure what causes those weird digital mistakes, I'm not a video expert, and I'm not saying that's what happened either, but it's a reasonable explanation that doesn't involve duplicity and a cover-up. You need to vet out any rational explanation before you can jump to the conspiracy explanation.

[johnny karate]

So you agree the video has been faked?

I'm not sure how you derived that from anything I've said.

You claim the video is fake.

The video was part of a film made by and with the cooperation of the FDNY.

How do reconcile that with your belief of the FDNY's level of complicity in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy?

[WildCat]

Here's another faked video, truth be told Alexei Ramirez does't even exist... in fact, his uniform number is an inside joke here at the NWO because he is a CGI fake, and is made up entirely of 1s and 0s.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809293573498&c_id=cws

[Pardalis]

Here's another faked video, truth be told Alexei Ramirez does't even exist... in fact, his uniform number is an inside joke here at the NWO because he is a CGI fake, and is made up entirely of 1s and 0s.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809293573498&c_id=cws

Noticed how he celebrated before the ball went in the stands? This means he knew in advance he had a home run.

Inside job!

[Totovader]

It also depends on how the author of the video got his material. I saw a downloaded version of "Lambs for Lions" the other day from Netflix, and it had many artifacts, little missing pixels in the image during the thransfer, including a shot when Robert Redford suddenly has a spooky reptilian eyes for a few frames.

Oh no... don't start talking reptilian... the guy is a no planer- jumping to "reptilian overlords" isn't that big of a leap for people of that level of ignorance.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Even TheCrimsonSkull was able to debunk this one.

[OneShotKi11]

Wait i think i finally figured it out...
Our government didnt commit the 9/11 attacks. It was the "FRENCH"!

On a serious note im going to watch the footage a little from another source and see if the mark atleast appears in it, and then work my way from there.

[mchapman]

Oh no... don't start talking reptilian... the guy is a no planer- jumping to "reptilian overlords" isn't that big of a leap for people of that level of ignorance.

Reported.

[Totovader]

Reported.

If you take "offense" to the term "ignorance"- then you surely will be able to provide credentials that you are a qualified video engineer, or that you have provided your research to someone of similar qualifications.

If not- then your outright ignorance on the issues- not only on this particular topic- but in just about everything you've posted so far- is so obvious that it strains the imagination as to how you expect to even be taken seriously.

You claim that this is irrefutable proof- and you can't even answer the simplest questions.

That- and anyone who cares can see that you're just retaliating for being made a fool of in other threads. There's absolutely no merit to this complaint, and I'm pretty confident the mods will see that.

[Pardalis]

Reported.

I actually think he raises a good point.

You certainly wouldn't consider that Redford is a reptilian, so you can accept that the strange eye is indeed surely due to a digital mistake.

Then, if you can accept that for the Redford video, then why are yo so quick to jump to the cover-up/photoshop conspiracy theory about the Naudet film? That conspiracy theory is as equally unlikely and as grotesque as the reptilian Redford one.

[Mince]

Watch the video all the way through. Its only about 6 minutes long. It is irrefutable unless the maker has altered the naudet footage and I don't think he has.


It's 7 minutes and 18 seconds long, ok, God damnit! I know more about the video that you're telling me to know more about than you do.

[mchapman]

If you take "offense" to the term "ignorance"- then you surely will be able to provide credentials that you are a qualified video engineer, or that you have provided your research to someone of similar qualifications.

If not- then your outright ignorance on the issues- not only on this particular topic- but in just about everything you've posted so far- is so obvious that it strains the imagination as to how you expect to even be taken seriously.

You claim that this is irrefutable proof- and you can't even answer the simplest questions.

That- and anyone who cares can see that you're just retaliating for being made a fool of in other threads. There's absolutely no merit to this complaint, and I'm pretty confident the mods will see that.

Address the OP or don't bother posting in the thread.

[beachnut]

Reported.
You should be reported for falling for real stupid stuff. 7 years and this is the best you can do? Do not feel bad, all of 9/11 truth is void of evidence, just like you.

So far you have presented zero evidence not a video so incredibly stupid. Who do I report you to for bringing up a stupid video to the forum?

Darn, I looked at the rules, you are allowed to show us videos from terminally stupid people with idiotic ideas about 9/11.

7 years and still no clue videos are being made.

Why did people's eyes see a plane? There goes the junk video, refuted by real people on 9/11, with real eyes. Did you miss the simple stuff?

Yes, a jet makes noise, a jets at 700 feet going 470 mph downtown, they look up and your failed video is refuted. This is too easy to refute what you bring. 7 years, you could have had a PhD, but you got bad video.

[Mince]

Because it looks the same as other naudet footage. Unless you can prove he has altered it?


The title of your thread includes "video fakery" and you're saying that I have to prove someone faked a video?

[mchapman]

I actually think he raises a good point.

You certainly wouldn't consider that Redford is a reptilian, so you can accept that the strange eye is indeed surely due to a digital mistake.

Then, if you can accept that for the Redford video, then why are yo so quick to jump to the cover-up/photoshop conspiracy theory about the Naudet film? That conspiracy theory is as equally unlikely and as grotesque as the reptilian Redford one.

The gash is not an artifact. It is on everything including an original factory made DVD of the naudet film "9/11"

[Totovader]

The gash is not an artifact. It is on everything including an original factory made DVD of the naudet film "9/11"

That doesn't make it "not an artifact", do you understand that?

[mchapman]

That doesn't make it "not an artifact", do you understand that?

It prevents it being a compression artifact.

It is on different frames with different zoom. It exists, no matter how much you want to call it an artifact.

[Totovader]

Address the OP or don't bother posting in the thread.

I am addressing the OP. If you think I am posting off-topic, then I suggest you report my posts to the moderator.

If you feel it necessary to act like the child you just claimed I was by starting a mod war, I think you'll find that you're not in the best spot: trolling is frowned upon, here- as is sock puppetry.

[Pardalis]

The gash is not an artifact. It is on everything including an original factory made DVD of the naudet film "9/11"

You would need to do further investigation to find out if it is not indeed an artifact than just saying it isn't.

It could be an artifact that happened during any part of the film's production, it could be a visual distortion caused by the zoom in, or any other rational explanation.

You need to see a real expert to find this out, than just one amateur video from an obviously demented YouTube subscriber.

[Mince]

Ok, mchapman, the "gash" appears on one video* but not the other. What is your logical determination for the discrepancy?

Please note I did say "logical".



*Assuming the "gash" was not edited in by some unscrupulous individual, with the intent on duping people like you.

[Totovader]

It prevents it being a compression artifact.

It is on different frames with different zoom. It exists, no matter how much you want to call it an artifact.

This is why you're ignorant.

DVD is not raw video, and it's not the original footage. Nor do artifacts always disappear with zoom.

Like I said- if you lack the qualifications, then where is your expert?

[Mince]

Quickest thread to 3 pages?


With superfluous posts like this...probably.

[beachnut]

The gash is not an artifact. It is on everything including an original factory made DVD of the naudet film "9/11"
No, it is a far away visual effect and you are pure gullible.

Your presentation of the video junk is pathetic. Here is the same effect seen, making the video junk! Your post, your thread shows how shallow your research, and your knowledge are?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11debunkedu.jpg

same as the video, nothing here, but your gullibility to fall for LIES about 9/11. Pure lies. That is the dumbest video I have see lately, thanks for bringing up pure stupid in one video.

Why do you lack experience on this stuff? 7 years, no excuse for presenting real bad false information. Can you raise the bar out of the pit of 9/11 truth ignorance, or is this your peak?

[fullflavormenthol]

It is worth repeating...


The gash is in the other videos. I don't understand how this guy missed it. Do you want to know why he missed it. Because he was so busy looking to find evidence of fakery that he never comprehended the idea that shadows are perceived differently from different angles. Meaning the Naudat footage is from bellow catching the shadow where the face of the WTC was made uneven from damage, whereas the other footage is more straight on. Meaning the shadow in those shots isn't pronounced, but the damage is still visible if you actually look. Ironically he points to it while saying it isn't there.

[T.A.M.]

mchapman is a noplaner. noplaner, your theories are ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of what you are doing.

Welcome to ignore.

TAM

[mchapman]

mchapman is a noplaner. noplaner, your theories are ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of what you are doing.

Welcome to ignore.

TAM


Great debunking!

[Wowbagger]

I doubt the thing being "penciled in" is completely due to digital artifacts. It looks like it might have been shadow and smoke, that are poorly defined due to compression artifacting.

The parts of the video, from other sources, that are labeled "NO GASH TIP HERE" actually do have shadow and smoke in the same spot (mostly shadow). So, I don't see what the big deal is.

[mchapman]

It is worth repeating...


The gash is in the other videos. I don't understand how this guy missed it. Do you want to know why he missed it. Because he was so busy looking to find evidence of fakery that he never comprehended the idea that shadows are perceived differently from different angles. Meaning the Naudat footage is from bellow catching the shadow where the face of the WTC was made uneven from damage, whereas the other footage is more straight on. Meaning the shadow in those shots isn't pronounced, but the damage is still visible if you actually look. Ironically he points to it while saying it isn't there.

How do you explain the way it appears when he loops it in greyscale?

[A W Smith]

And how does that black gashshadow from smoke propagate 15 seconds later?

fixed that for you. just watched a bunch of news feed footage from archive.org. you can see the shadow in some shots there cast from the billowing black smoke at the aircraft entry hole. The sun is to east (the left ) in all footage of the north face being that its after 8:46 in the morning.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I have the Naudet brothers DVD. The black "gash" is there on my copy.

I think the strangest thing about the whole sequence is the secondary explosion. There appears to be a period of time after the wing passes and before the explosion where there is no damage to the wall. It's really the same problem that CNN Ghostplane has.

First the right wing passes.

Then the secondary explosion occurs.

Then later there is a hole.

But a jet fuel explosion cannot break steel, we all agree on that.

Therefore the wing did not cause the hole, and the explosion included something besides hydrocarbons.

The black area does indeed look completely inconsistent with other videos.

Where I think I might disagree with the OP video is the characterization of the plane as "transparent" and so forth. I know Ace Baker has done work scaling model 767 airplanes into shots, and has concluded that the image in Naudet is just what a 767 would look like (whether real or animated).

[Totovader]

How do you explain the way it appears when he loops it in greyscale?

Oh is that a grayscale filter? And here I thought it was the "conspiracy theory filter" the whole time.

An important question: what video editing software did he use?

WTF is with the no planers and their filters?

[Pardalis]

A real gash that is there in other videos, a digital artifact, a shadow, there you go mchapman, plenty of rational explanations you can research that don't involve a conspiracy.

You can also look further into your photoshop theory as well, if the video has been tampered with, experts will be able to see it.

Now go investigate, this is certainly not absolute proof of anything, except of your gullibility.

[johnny karate]

You can also look further into your photoshop theory as well, if the video has been tampered with, experts will be able to see it.

I'm fairly certain that mchapman would just claim the world's population of video analysis experts are somehow "in on it". He's already implicated the Naudet brothers, everyone involved in the production of the film, and of course, the FDNY.

Implicating video analysis experts is the next logical step, if the term "logical" could be applied to anything he does.

[fullflavormenthol]

How do you explain the way it appears when he loops it in greyscale?
Oh you mean how the smoke spreads through the gash? You know smoke, which is dark. You know like dark things that would show up more in grey scale.

Again, if it was "photoshopped" in, you would be able to detect it by analyzing the uniformed pattern of pixels.

[Pardalis]

I think the strangest thing about the whole sequence is the secondary explosion. There appears to be a period of time after the wing passes and before the explosion where there is no damage to the wall.

How long does the entire sequence of events happen? A few seconds? How can you determine that this "second" explosion isn't the original blast that just expands?

What is the frame rate of a digital camera? Can the discrepancy be explained by the fact that digital cameras can only capture a few frames per second of an extremely fast moving object?

Could the fire be ignited a few micro-seconds after the impact? The sequence of events, again in micro- seconds, could be : impact, friction, ignition. Wouldn't this explain the delay between the plane being engulfed and the fireball?

And these are just a few explanations a layperson like me can think of off the top of my head that could explain this without involving a conspiracy.

[beachnut]

Therefore the wing did not cause the hole, and the explosion included something besides hydrocarbons.
WRONG – were you really waiting for the dumbest video yet to expose how truthy and full of lies you are?

The wing does cause the hole. Sorry, but your lack of physics is not an excuse to post lies.

Pure lies. There is fuel in the wing going 470 mph, the wing breaks thought the shell of the WTC, the plane has over 1300 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. You forgot the engines are on the wing?

No there is no RDX or thermite. Sorry, but your failure is due to no ability to handle physics.

How can you post such a stupid statement?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11realdumbstuffagain.jpg
I see posts, I see post pushed in, truthers don't even understand this

no explosions caused the hole, a KE impact did. Got physics?

The wing did not do a great job of breeching the WTC, 175 will have a bigger impact, 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, vs. 11's 1300 pounds. But why mention energy you have no clue what it means. Or do you?

[Mince]

But a jet fuel explosion cannot break steel, we all agree on that.

What the hell do you mean by that? Break steel? Give me an example of "broken" steel on 9/11. Give me your scientific analysis which convinces me that "jet fuel" doesn't "break steel"...if you even know what broken steel is, which I doubt.

And please...puhleeeeeeeeese...don't presume to know what me and you agree upon...k?

[UNLoVedRebel]

When you get debunked by TheCrimsonSkull, that's when it's time to tap out.

youtube.com/watch?v=QFh2Ozb4cDg

[A W Smith]

"Absolute proof of video fakery'

I neglected to point out your thread title is in error. you may want to ask a mod to change it.. you and the video author have absolutely proven no such thing.


unloved I will fix that link for ya

QFh2Ozb4cDg

[Mince]

How do you explain the way it appears when he loops it in greyscale?


Dude. Think about what you're saying here.

"Loops"

"Greyscale"


These are editing terms.

The Naudet brothers did not ever "loop" or "greyscale" their video.

[1337m4n]

mchapman, what's this?

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Pentagon_engine_photo350.jpg

[fullflavormenthol]

Well a NTSC camera captures at a rate of 29.976 frames per second. A PAL camera is about 25 frames per second. A film camera would be close to 24 frames per second, close to PAL format actually.

Now compare this to high speed cameras used for the type of analysis that these people are wanting to do. The few high speed cameras I have seen will record at a rate of 5,400 frames per second. Meaning you can't do an accurate high speed analysis of an explosion with even the best off the shelf 3CCD NTSC/PAL system.

[Pardalis]

When you get debunked by TheCrimsonSkull, that's when it's time to tap out.

QFh2Ozb4cDg

I think we've got ourselves a winner.

[fullflavormenthol]

When you get debunked by TheCrimsonSkull, that's when it's time to tap out.

youtube.com/watch?v=QFh2Ozb4cDg
I like his choice in music. Very appropriate.

[OneShotKi11]

For starters the original video that Mchapman posted hand not been tampered with and or photoshoped. It is the original Naudet video and i come to that conclusion by simply comparing it to a few other Naudet posted videos. So atleast thats a credible start.

Here is an HD version of the video i will be using in my post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKyNl26s3ic&feature=related&fmt=18

As for the black line that was in question. Mchapman was correct when he stated it seems to appear out of nowhere 15 seconds after the initial impact, well actually its more like 12 seconds but im not holding you accountable for that because its irrelevant.

As for the rest of your post/ideas on the issue you seem a little off. Clearly without even having to inspect the videos im sure everyone here was well aware that the reason it seemingly appears "out of nowhere", is because of the dust and debris finally clearly after about 12 secounds.

As you will notice from watching your footage at around 18-19 secounds the amount of debris and smoke in the Air is drastically clouding any clear shot of the building. All detail is lost behind the smoke and truthfully you can only really make out the building outline and fire from the explosion.

At around 20 sec you will receive a shot of the towers from a distance that shows the fog and how much it is clouding the shot of the Camera.

Now at 23-24 secounds you receive your first glimpse of the mysterious black line appearing from behind the dust cloud. Now compare the screen shot at 20 secs to the one at 23-24 and notice the significant difference in color and visibility. This is because the debris and dust are finally starting to blow away and reveal the damage for the first time. This is where you notice your black line.

The funny thing about this black line is that it is actually a trick on the eyes which is more visible from a distance then upclose. (Yes weird) That is the reason for the close up in your video not showing the black line.
I came to this conclusion after watching several videos of people zooming in and out of the towers and noticing how when they zoomed out the line was clear as day, but when they zoomed in the line magically disappeared.
This is only true for the earliest shots of the towers. As the day progressed and the smoke became darker and more parts of the WTC began to pour smoke, the building does become scorched and the lines become more permanent and noticeable.

Shadows and lighting also seem to play a part of this line appearing darker and more prominent in different videos. Its all about the shot and the angle its taken from.
Dont believe me? Try and look for yourself.

[Mince]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1171248e1b801c8fa7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13950)



If the fires were so hot, how could this lady be standing in the crux of the fires*...standing on a precipice, inches from death? The fires weren't so hot. Those people who jumped from the towers...they wanted to kill themselves anyway. Truthers...and I'm seriously asking this...could you be any more stupid? Could you?


*I mean, if I'm in a burning office building...and there are no fires...I'm standing as far away from the "drop of death" as possible. Two reasons. One, I don't get snared by "the drop of death." Two, I could be inside calling for help. Why is the lady standing on the precipice of death and not inside calling for help? Oh, that's right, because the fire wasn't that intense. That's right.

[A W Smith]

I detect a very familiar level of stupidity possibly emanating from Manchester UK

[JoeyDonuts]

I had to jump in.

Let's look at this from another angle entirely. Let's assume that your allegation is true - That this video was doctored to appear that a plane had impacted WTC. If this is in fact true, then every single TV station that aired that footage is also complicit. This doctored footage would have to have been delivered to the television station(s) in the NYC area that were covering the event live. It would have been brought back to the Master Control area where the tape machines for on-air are kept. It doesn't end with the operator placing the tape into the machine and pressing play, either.

In order for this to have been pulled off, the Technical Director in the control room would have placed that tape machine on the on-air program source, with the various station CG ("live" keys, and such) superimposed over it. He/she would have used this tape rather than the usual tower-cam or helicopter shot, which if we follow the OP's allegations, would have showed a completely intact building.

This is ludicrous. I have worked in the TV business for a while now so I'm qualified to debunk this particular aspect of it. So - a shadowy NWO operative drops the tape off with instructions with what to do with it...no, no, that wouldn't work. It'd sit there on the receptionist's cart until someone from Engineering came down and got it. No, there would have been a team of armed "AGENTS WOO!!!" that would have stood directly behind the Master Control or Tape Operator as well as the Technical Director in the Production Control room and made sure they complied. In addition, these shadow operatives would have briefed the news director, producers, and on-air talent on what to say. I would make a call to WNBC's master control folks to see if anything like this happened back in 2001, but that would be insulting. You're more than welcome to do it if you wish.

This just points out the most likely scenario for this supposedly doctored footage making on the air and being presented as fact. I'm always 3 steps ahead of truthers so here's a couple counters to what I believe the retorts will be:

1. Maybe they shot the entire coverage beforehand and just aired the entire thing as if it were live.

Not possible. This would be conceivable had mass digital storage been utilized widely back then. How long was the coverage event? Several hours at LEAST. The capacity to store that video digitally and replay it on the air didn't really exist at the time, not unless they deleted all of their digitally stored local commercials/paid programs to make room. No TV station is going to do that - that's what generate their revenue. Ah, but maybe it was rolled off of tape! NO. Even today, the longest duration for a DigiBeta or Beta SP tape is about 80 minutes. These are the standard tape formats for TV stations. Even if they had recorded it on several tapes and rolled them out over the air, there would be a visible switch in the coverage as the Master Control router took one tape machine offline and put the other one on the air.

2. Mebbe they pirated the signal LOLZ!

No sir, I don't think so. There hasn't been an incident of broadcast signal intrusion since the Max Headroom incident in Chicago back in 1987...before that Captain Midnight managed to override the HBO uplink for a few minutes...that's it. The station would have used either a point-to-point studio to transmitter RF link, but most likely they're using fiberoptics to send their program signal to their transmitter - which would be located in an area outside of the greater city limits owing to RF hazards. Perhaps the NWO was able to somehow cut into the fiber cable between the studio and the transmitter and inject their doctored news footage with enough signal strength to override the actual TV signal, but you would have seen the line get cut at some point - the TV station would have gone dark for however long it took them to get their pirate signal on the line to the transmitter. I don't think that happened, Jeeves.

mchapman, if you would be so kind as to explain to me how it was that this doctored footage made it on the air?

Sorry this was so longwinded, but I think we're looking at game, set, and match here.

[OneShotKi11]

"Absolute proof of video fakery'

I neglected to point out your thread title is in error. you may want to ask a mod to change it.. you and the video author have absolutely proven no such thing.


unloved I will fix that link for ya

QFh2Ozb4cDg

Its not a shadow at all this video is false. I watched several videos where the shadow and the Black line are definitely able to be distinguished as different from each other.
I suspected this at first but easilly was able to throw that idea out the window.
Read my last post and see what i am talking about.

I debunked a debunker who debunked a truther only to show a more credible answer to back the original debunkers beliefs!
Now say that 3 times fast!

[Corsair 115]

Great debunking!What's fascinating about no-planers is that they apparently don't realize just how ridiculously crazy their ideas are. It's right up there with the Apollo moan hoax crowd...

[Mince]

Let's assume that your allegation is true - That this video was doctored to appear that a plane had impacted WTC.

Surely, I know what you're saying. But if video can be faked to dupe people into thinking a plane hit the tower, then video can be faked to make idiots people like the OP think that video is faked to make people think a plane hit the tower(s). Simply, if no plane hit the towers, where are the ***** towers?

Not so clever, no. Do not deliberately breach the rules.

[mchapman]

I had to jump in.

Let's look at this from another angle entirely. Let's assume that your allegation is true - That this video was doctored to appear that a plane had impacted WTC. If this is in fact true, then every single TV station that aired that footage is also complicit. This doctored footage would have to have been delivered to the television station(s) in the NYC area that were covering the event live. It would have been brought back to the Master Control area where the tape machines for on-air are kept. It doesn't end with the operator placing the tape into the machine and pressing play, either.

In order for this to have been pulled off, the Technical Director in the control room would have placed that tape machine on the on-air program source, with the various station CG ("live" keys, and such) superimposed over it. He/she would have used this tape rather than the usual tower-cam or helicopter shot, which if we follow the OP's allegations, would have showed a completely intact building.

This is ludicrous. I have worked in the TV business for a while now so I'm qualified to debunk this particular aspect of it. So - a shadowy NWO operative drops the tape off with instructions with what to do with it...no, no, that wouldn't work. It'd sit there on the receptionist's cart until someone from Engineering came down and got it. No, there would have been a team of armed "AGENTS WOO!!!" that would have stood directly behind the Master Control or Tape Operator as well as the Technical Director in the Production Control room and made sure they complied. In addition, these shadow operatives would have briefed the news director, producers, and on-air talent on what to say. I would make a call to WNBC's master control folks to see if anything like this happened back in 2001, but that would be insulting. You're more than welcome to do it if you wish.

This just points out the most likely scenario for this supposedly doctored footage making on the air and being presented as fact. I'm always 3 steps ahead of truthers so here's a couple counters to what I believe the retorts will be:

1. Maybe they shot the entire coverage beforehand and just aired the entire thing as if it were live.

Not possible. This would be conceivable had mass digital storage been utilized widely back then. How long was the coverage event? Several hours at LEAST. The capacity to store that video digitally and replay it on the air didn't really exist at the time, not unless they deleted all of their digitally stored local commercials/paid programs to make room. No TV station is going to do that - that's what generate their revenue. Ah, but maybe it was rolled off of tape! NO. Even today, the longest duration for a DigiBeta or Beta SP tape is about 80 minutes. These are the standard tape formats for TV stations. Even if they had recorded it on several tapes and rolled them out over the air, there would be a visible switch in the coverage as the Master Control router took one tape machine offline and put the other one on the air.

2. Mebbe they pirated the signal LOLZ!

No sir, I don't think so. There hasn't been an incident of broadcast signal intrusion since the Max Headroom incident in Chicago back in 1987...before that Captain Midnight managed to override the HBO uplink for a few minutes...that's it. The station would have used either a point-to-point studio to transmitter RF link, but most likely they're using fiberoptics to send their program signal to their transmitter - which would be located in an area outside of the greater city limits owing to RF hazards. Perhaps the NWO was able to somehow cut into the fiber cable between the studio and the transmitter and inject their doctored news footage with enough signal strength to override the actual TV signal, but you would have seen the line get cut at some point - the TV station would have gone dark for however long it took them to get their pirate signal on the line to the transmitter. I don't think that happened, Jeeves.

mchapman, if you would be so kind as to explain to me how it was that this doctored footage made it on the air?

Sorry this was so longwinded, but I think we're looking at game, set, and match here.

This footage wasn't shown until the following day.

[JoeyDonuts]

Simply, if no plane hit the towers, where are the *********** towers?

I'm pretty sure the forthcoming answer will be the same tired old "controlled demolition" bollocks.

So now we've added the technical staff of the NYC-area TV stations to the list of 9/11 conspirators. Ya know, the more complicated the plan is, the harder it is to pull off. 9/11 CT's are no different than any other mindless revolutionary - They can't agree on what they want, only on what they oppose.

[JoeyDonuts]

This footage wasn't shown until the following day.

Even if that's true - then it still applies that the TV station(s) are complicit in the cover-up. That still implicates the entire News and Broadcast engineering departments. How did it get on the air?

[Pardalis]

This footage wasn't shown until the following day.

This is all you got to say after Joey's lenghty and well thought out response?

Why do we even bother with you?

[Mince]

Why do we even bother with you?


Personally, I can't let the idiots run amok. If it's in my power...and domain...I have to counter them. I cannot help myself.

[mchapman]

This is all you got to say after Joey's lenghty and well thought out response?

Why do we even bother with you?

What else did I need to say?

[Mince]

mchapman;

Since you seemingly think the Naudet brothers were complicit in the conspiracy, have you bothered to interview them; or are you, like most other boring truthers, merely relying on YouTube videos and Google searches? Just curious.

[OneShotKi11]

What else did I need to say?

Did you read my post?
Did you run the test i told you to run and compare videos?

[JoeyDonuts]

If the claims in the video are to believed, then there are at least three separate "video forgery" crews, one of which was made up of the Naudet brothers.

Did the NWO put a classified ad in the New York Times asking for "forgery crews" prior to 9/11?

I'm sorry, but I can't take a "penciled-in-gash" looking black tip as anything other than a very shakily held sub-broadcast quality camera. The video posits that the billowing small flame is a "secondary explosion" when it's quite obvious from even a cursory glance that the expanding flames were obscured by debris at first.

And as for the multiple explosions on all sides...Jeesus people, ever heard of a little scientific principle called DISPLACEMENT?!?

Ere go - Boeing aircraft goes into a sealed office building with a given volume of air (no doubt already pressurized due to the sheer height of it), fuel tank explodes - That air has to go somewhere. It's going to follow the path of least resistance through elevator shafts, air ducts, spaces between walls, and whatever else.

To quote GLAdoS - "Speedy thing goes in...speedy thing comes out."

[Pardalis]

To quote GLAdoS - "Speedy thing goes in...speedy thing comes out."

Not unlike mchapman's brain at this point.

Anything we say goes in one hear and out the other one.

[JoeyDonuts]

What else did I need to say?

Once again, I'm going to assume that this video is true. Why YouTube? Why choose a forum that has absolutely NO credibility whatsoever to release this earth-shaking expose?

I'd like to think that if I was the only one who was able to figure out a vast military-industrial conspiracy to goad the U.S. public into supporting a war for oil, I'd take that to a reputable news source outside of the United States like Deutche Welle or the BBC. [buffalo bill accent] OH WAIT. [/bba]

These must all be on the payroll of the Illuminati/Pentavirate/NWO/Colonel Sanders.

I bet Al-Jazeera would love this.

[LashL]

Join Date: 28th September 2008


Total Posts: 95
Posts Per Day: 63.01


Come on, people. Don't feed the troll.

[JoeyDonuts]

mchapman, I really hope you don't mind me playing in your backyard.

So long as you understand I might just poop in your rose bushes while I'm there.

[JohnG]

mchapman,

Just so I understand where you are coming from, can you please confirm for me what you think caused onlookers in New York to think they saw airplanes? Here are the two possibilities I've seen bandied about:

Everyone simply mistook the missiles for airplanes and news reports and the government reinforced that mistaken perception.

The holographic image of airplanes was projected into the sky.

If you posit the first theory, wasn't that an extraordinary (not to mention foolhardy) risk on the part of the supposed conspirators? Surely most of the people in New York and New Jersey who could see the twin towers would be watching the second plane hit and many of those people would be videoing the event. If even one of those tapes got past the conspirators, the jig would have been up? Weren't they also risking having literally thousands of witnesses insisting on live TV that they actually saw missiles? Is a missile really indistinguishable from an airplane? Really?

If you believe the hologram theory, well I have one objection, namely, that holograms can not be projected into empty space, despite what you may have been led to believe from watching the Star Wars films, or action films such as The World Is Not Enough. Don't take my word for it, though. Research it yourself.

Perhaps you have a third explanation? If so, I for one would be very interested to hear it.

[TobiasTheViking]

Interesting question.

Let us suppose you are colorblind, and have been that way for your entire life. As for determining the color of the sky, you would have to options:

I am colourblind...

The colour of the sky is green..

I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

[JoeyDonuts]

The holographic image of airplanes was projected into the sky.

WHAT?!?! Tell me, kind sir, where might I get this wonderful technology that I may use it to watch pornography, play HALO, and orchestrate an enormous conspiracy?!?!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I stopped watching the video halfway in.

The author does the exact same thing we see in countless other twoofer vids. The footage is taken from so far out that the faces of the towers become solid, featureless, gray walls. You can't even make out the individual "strips" of aluminum cladding and windows.

"See how there was no damage caused by the wing..."

No... I can't. And neither can you or anyone. That information is simply not there. The resolution just isn't there. These people watch these vids and their minds make up for them the things they see.

[Mince]

The colour of the sky is green.

Is it teal or forest green? Jade or olive drab? These are important questions regarding the collapse of the towers, don't you know?

[TobiasTheViking]

This footage wasn't shown until the following day.

False

[JoeyDonuts]

Is it teal or forest green? Jade or olive drab? These are important questions regarding the collapse of the towers, don't you know?

On his planet? Probably nice and RED.

[JoeyDonuts]

False

I conceded to him that even IF it had aired the following day, then all of my points about a TV station conspiracy still applied.

Still waiting on a response.

[UNLoVedRebel]

"Video fakery" is stupid, but September Clues deserves an Oscar compared to Loose Change.

[TobiasTheViking]

Is it teal or forest green? Jade or olive drab? These are important questions regarding the collapse of the towers, don't you know?

Heh, because i'm colourblind, when it comes to green, brown, red(and others, but mostly those) i can, barely, destinguish between green and red.. There is no way on earth i could say if it was teal or forest green, or jade or olive drab, my eyes just aren't equpied to see that kind of information

With that said

The colour of the sky is brown..

I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

[OneShotKi11]

I conceded to him that even IF it had aired the following day, then all of my points about a TV station conspiracy still applied.

Still waiting on a response.

Thats called logical on point debate skills!
Conceding to the individual making the claim is definitely appropriate when the claim cannot hurt your argument what so ever....

[OneShotKi11]

Heh, because i'm colourblind, when it comes to green, brown, red(and others, but mostly those) i can, barely, destinguish between green and red.. There is no way on earth i could say if it was teal or forest green, or jade or olive drab, my eyes just aren't equpied to see that kind of information

With that said

The colour of the sky is brown..

I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

Well you have already stated your eyes are inaccurate with what they see, so asking another pair of more accurate eyes to translate for you would probably be your best option.;):D

[JoeyDonuts]

Thats called logical on point debate skills!
Conceding to the individual making the claim is definitely appropriate when the claim cannot hurt your argument what so ever....

Yes. I am more than willing to allow him to sidestep the bear trap because I know that he's still surrounded by Claymores....

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/100276794_548c83c4eb.jpg

....Excellent.

[Slayhamlet]

It's not a video artefact. It was captured by John F. Davis as well, as you can see in this close-up still taken immediately after the impact:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1660348e1d49450485.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13952)

It's smoke, but its apparent thickness is exaggerated by the dark shadow cast about it.

You can download the high-res (compared to Youtube) version of the Naudet video here: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/high-resolution-original-footage-of-the-911-hoax-free-911-documentary-downloads

The "secondary explosion" at 00:27 is actually the beginning of a large flare shooting out of the building after the impact, which is at first partially obscured by the huge fireball from the jet fuel that exploded outside the building. You can watch as the smoke remaining from the dissipating external fireball is pushed out by the massive flare, (and may even be partially reignited by it). What's noteworthy is that the flare is obviously coming out only from the area of the façade already punched out by the plane, the rightmost part of which was just barely visible before because of the shadow cast over it by the fireball, as well as the surrounding dust and smoke which further reduces visibility. The "secondary explosion" isn't increasing the size of the hole at all: the delayed flare is shooting out from the original impact hole, and it matches the hole exactly.

At about 00:33, as the flare settles back, the dark smudge begins to fill out. It is smoke accumulating in the shaded area just to the right of the impact hole where the flare couldn't escape from, and it makes a streak that matches the floor layout. Since it's set directly in the shadow it almost looks dark enough to be a continuation of the impact hole, but if you look closely it clearly isn't. The same effect appears above the flames that lick up and out from the impact hole, causing the hole to appear much taller than it really is.

[JoeyDonuts]

That's a pretty darned good and objective observation, Slayhamlet.

I think between the two of us, we may have put this poor dead horse in the ground for good. Unfortunately, this won't be enough for people who find it easier to wrap their heads around a mind-boggingly huge conspiracy than to accept that we were kicked in the collective national balls by a determined, intelligent, and patient adversary.

I guess it's on to the next pile of steaming conspiracy "proof."

http://www.singlestravelservice.com/images/sunset.jpg

Happy Trails.

[WildCat]

Noticed how he celebrated before the ball went in the stands? This means he knew in advance he had a home run.

Inside job!
And the final proof? No rookie has ever before hit 4 grand slams! And as we all know, it is impossible for something to happen for the first time ever!

[Undesired Walrus]

It also depends on how the author of the video got his material. I saw a downloaded version of "Lambs for Lions" the other day from Netflix, and it had many artifacts, little missing pixels in the image during the thransfer, including a shot when Robert Redford suddenly has a spooky reptilian eyes for a few frames.

Did it fake a good movie?

[chillzero]

Please make that the end of the slight sports derail.

Thanks. :)

[Mancman]

Until I saw this video I thought video fakery was ridiculous

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

but this video proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!

Wow, what an absolute trainwreck of insane gibberish that was.

Some thoughts.

Video maker points to 'top floor explosion'. Sorry, that's where the vent louvres were, it's just smoke going through the vents.

Video maker points to south side explosion and says 'approx 20 stories lower?'. No, sorry. That's called perspective.
See how the top of the south tower looks much lower than the top of the north tower? That's because it's further away from the viewpoint. The south side explosion is blasting out a fair distance south of the tower, hence is further away than the north side, so will look lower.
This is basic stuff.

Video maker points to a 'secondary explosion'. Nope. All I see is fire being excited by a considerable updraft of exploding fuel directly above it.

Video maker says 30% of the tower wall is intact after impact. Impossible claim, since most of what he claims as intact is in fact in the shadow of the explosion and too obscured to make any valid judgement.

Video maker points out the 'gash'. It's not a gash. It's just smoke! Plane hits building, releases fuel inside and ignites it, fuel spreads and starts burning. Fire creates smoke, smoke exits building. Do you follow?

Video maker than points us to news footage of the tower much later on, but fails to show other images shot at the same time, such as those posted above by Slayhamlet, which prove the 'gash' is nothing more than smoke from an early jet fuel fire which obviously died down later.

Conclusion: video maker is an insane idiot. Why are you wasting our time by posting this garbage? This is trash. Stop making a fool of yourself.

[JoeyDonuts]

So maybe it was a missile? Ahh, but which one? Most of the cruise missiles launched from aircraft or surface vessels are too small to be mistaken for an airplane by any reasonable person. Plus, the unitary 1000lb+ warheads these guys carry would have most likely blown the top of WTC clean off or just vaporized it. Wow...what cruise missile can we pick here that would lend the missile strike theory some credibility?

Oooh I got it!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/CCAFS_Navaho_(Large).jpg/180px-CCAFS_Navaho_(Large).jpg

That right there is the SM-64 Navaho. This was a intercontinental cruise missile project developed by North American Aviation between 1946 and 1958. It had an overall length of 67 feet and a wingspan of 28 feet. Though not as large as an airliner, this could possibly be mistaken at a distance and odd angle as an airliner! EUREKA!!!

Uhhh...Problem with that one, Archimedes.

The only one of these puppies in existence in 2001 was on static display outside Cape Caneveral, Florida. So all we have to do now is see if it's missing! If it's not there anymore, it must have hit the WTC!!!

What do you mean, there were TWO towers hit?!?!? AND the Pentagon?!

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/DSN/DSN001/deer-headlights_~19878.jpg

[Drudgewire]

This thread. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/psyduck.gif

[Grizzly Bear]

The only one of these puppies in existence in 2001 was on static display outside Cape Caneveral, Florida. So all we have to do now is see if it's missing! If it's not there anymore, it must have hit the WTC!!!
Nope still there as of 2006 :D

Any one wanna tell me what the lower manhattan area witnessed that day if all the videos were fake... because there was something near a quarter million people within a few blocks of the towers at the time of impact.

[JoeyDonuts]

Nope still there as of 2006 :D

Any one wanna tell me what the lower manhattan area witnessed that day if all the videos were fake... because there was something near a quarter million people within a few blocks of the towers at the time of impact.

Quite simple actually. All hot dog and falafel street vendor's carts were swapped out with dummy carts containing a miniature modified version of the Active Denial System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System). This variant, rather than emitting pain-compliance microwaves, induced artificial visual stimulation directly into the cerebral cortex of each one of those quarter million people. Those people saw what THEY wanted them to see.

Whaddaya mean, do I have proof? I don't need it. I played Metal Gear Solid once and I have a pretty good idea what DARPA stands for - therefore this must be true.

[/facetious]

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

mchapman - Have you seen this paper (http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-8.pdf)? Ace Baker has put together what he considers to be the strongest evidence for video fakery on 9/11. He's requesting review and criticism.

A conclusion you may find interesting is that live compositing rules out any flying object, according to Baker. This is because live motion tracking is not possible.

[Mancman]

Oops, the 'gash' aka smoke is in this footage as well.

Wh1L2ew5-Ok

Dang reality.

[funk de fino]

mchapman - Have you seen this paper (http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-8.pdf)? Ace Baker has put together what he considers to be the strongest evidence for video fakery on 9/11. He's requesting review and criticism.

A conclusion you may find interesting is that live compositing rules out any flying object, according to Baker. This is because live motion tracking is not possible.

waste of time, written by a madman

[johnny karate]

I conceded to him that even IF it had aired the following day, then all of my points about a TV station conspiracy still applied.

Still waiting on a response.

mchapman already believes the FDNY was in on it , since they participated in making the supposedly fake video in question. Do you really think he'll balk at implicating the media?

[roundhead]

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/6673/airvsskyscraperzh9.gif

[johnny karate]

Careful there, roundhead. So far you've only accused the FDNY of cowardice and complicity after the fact. If you throw in with mchapman, you're outright accusing the FDNY of direct involvement in the conspiracy.

[roundhead]

Careful there, roundhead. So far you've only accused the FDNY of cowardice and complicity after the fact. If you throw in with mchapman, you're outright accusing the FDNY of direct involvement in the conspiracy.


Stay on topic

[Mancman]

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/6673/airvsskyscraperzh9.gif

Debunked. (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/175speed.html)

Any more nonsense you want to peddle?

[JoeyDonuts]

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/6673/airvsskyscraperzh9.gif

Roger that. I suspend my disbelief for the moment. And I agree that in this particular image you provided (albeit with no information about where it came from, who is responsible for its creation, who shot the footage, etc.) it takes the plane eleven frames traveling through the air and then another eleven frames to almost completely disappear into the building. This would suggest that the momentum of the plane was virtually unaffected by the "steel and concrete" construction of the WTC.

Since the image postulates that the plane was a fake, are you suggesting that the plane never hit the building at all? Or that an object DID strike WTC that was not a plane? If the second scenario is true, with respect to the assumption that a real plane would have taken more frames to disappear into the WTC - this would suggest that whatever aerial object struck the tower was constructed of a material that would not perform in this manner, something made of more denser and stronger material than the airliner.

That about right?

[twinstead]

It takes a special kind of stupid to be a no planer.

[JoeyDonuts]

Crap. Mancman beat me to it.

MIT did a far better job of blowing that one open than I EVER could have.

[mchapman]

False

No, it's true.

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it's true.

I'd be curious as to what a quarter million people within a few blocks of the towers had witnessed then... in either case you've claimed it, I gather you have a means to substantiate?


http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/6673/airvsskyscraperzh9.gif

Damn that little thing called momentum :mad:

[defaultdotxbe]

Roger that. I suspend my disbelief for the moment. And I agree that in this particular image you provided (albeit with no information about where it came from, who is responsible for its creation, who shot the footage, etc.) it takes the plane eleven frames traveling through the air and then another eleven frames to almost completely disappear into the building. This would suggest that the momentum of the plane was virtually unaffected by the "steel and concrete" construction of the WTC.

Since the image postulates that the plane was a fake, are you suggesting that the plane never hit the building at all? Or that an object DID strike WTC that was not a plane? If the second scenario is true, with respect to the assumption that a real plane would have taken more frames to disappear into the WTC - this would suggest that whatever aerial object struck the tower was constructed of a material that would not perform in this manner, something made of more denser and stronger material than the airliner.

That about right?
also bear in mind that if we postulate BOTH planes were fake then everything laid out in post 102 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083173&postcount=102) comes back into play

if we postulate only the first plane was fake, and the second was real the idea of live faking doenst come up, as no shots of the first plane were broadcast live (in fact i think only 2 or 3 videos exist)

of coruse neither scenerio accounts for the eyewitnesses

[mchapman]

I'd be curious as to what a quarter million people within a few blocks of the towers had witnessed then... in either case you've claimed it, I gather you have a means to substantiate?




Damn that little thing called momentum :mad:

Substantiate what? No news outlets got the naudet first hit footage until the following day. How could they? The naudet brothers were caught up in the action all day.

You can easily verify this by looking at the internet archive. No networks showed that footage until about 3am the following day.

[Crazytimes]

Of all the 9/11 truther videos I have ever seen, this is by far the dumbest. Gee...maybe high pressure and fire were rolling through the building during impact and it blew out the windows and burning fuel created the mark ?

But why use common sense ?

All the talk about secondary explosions in the video is embarassing. As if there was no fuel moving through office spaces.

Awful....

[Grizzly Bear]

Substantiate what? No news outlets got the naudet first hit footage until the following day. How could they? The naudet brothers were caught up in the action all day.

You can easily verify this by looking at the internet archive. No networks showed that footage until about 3am the following day.

I'm thinking about the south tower for some reason... :\
Let me rephrase for clarity, if the video was doctored then what was witnessed at the time of the actual event? No amount of video doctoring can escape that there were thousands of people in the immediate vicinity of the towers at the moment the impacts took place.

[JoeyDonuts]

Substantiate what? No news outlets got the naudet first hit footage until the following day. How could they? The naudet brothers were caught up in the action all day.

You can easily verify this by looking at the internet archive. No networks showed that footage until about 3am the following day.

Have to concede this point. The Naudet video first appeared on Univision appx. 1 AM EST, with the major US networks following soon after.

I really don't think this minor point proves one thing or another. If the Naudets were truly part of a conspiracy to release doctored video footage the only video record of the first impact, why would the conspiracy controlling them release it to Univision FIRST, and then the US networks?

Build international support for the scheme before showing it to the US?

I do not believe this video was not doctored at all, owing to the fact that there are other angles showing the "penciled in line" as smoke and shadows.

However, on this technical point you are correct. The Naudet video was not shown until the following day. Though I'm still not finding where they had time to "doctor" the footage before getting it to Univision. You have to admit the timing involved is a little hairy.

[mchapman]

I'm thinking about the south tower for some reason... :\
Let me rephrase for clarity, if the video was doctored then what was witnessed at the time of the actual event? No amount of video doctoring can escape that there were thousands of people in the immediate vicinity of the towers at the moment the impacts took place.

Please provide these thousands of testimonies.

[16.5]

Please provide these thousands of testimonies.

Oy vey.

Anyhow, I will break my not very firm rule of no posting in No Planer threads to point out once again the sound of the plane and the firemen's obvious reactions to the Plane are clearly shown in that film.

Good jorb! You just debunked the No Planers!

[funk de fino]

Please provide these thousands of testimonies.

This is what the TM is reduced to. No planers are the pond life of the already sub intelligent group.

There are actual witness on this site.

[Grizzly Bear]

Please provide these thousands of testimonies.

So you deny that there were thousands of occupants on their way to work inside the towers? That people driving their cars along the street during their morning commute? That local businesses would be opening up for the day? What'd they do close off the entire downtown financial district of Mahattan to civilians?


.................................................. ................. wow......................

[fullflavormenthol]

The no-planer arguments are so quickly debunked that the only way this thread can continue for as long as it has is from the complete intellectual evasion of those presenting this so called evidence. Simply look to the other thread still currently on the first page dealing with this very same topic. Within the first page the "paper" was torn apart, but the person posting the thread did the intellectual equivalent of putting one's fingers in their ears and screaming, "la la la la la la!"

No evidence is good enough for them, and they move goal posts and retro-actively change the meaning of the original question and claim you are avoiding it. They pull the tactic of claiming that no one will answer the question (all while ignoring legitimate answers) and then move the thread on to the next question. All so they can go back to the crazy house of no-planer trutherism and claim that they won the debate and that no one can refute their insanity.

Can you refute no-planers? No, because they will believe absolutely anything. Should you post responses to their insanity? Yes, but not for their benefit; but to voice against them. Though anyone who looks at the video of what happened on 9-11 and thinks, "Dude that is totally fake. Hey don't bogart the smoke man...(couch). Wow man...like they totally projected the planes through computers man." is already too far gone to be helped with logic.

Remember these people are the ones that other Truthers avoid. We are talking about the lowest collumn on the truther.

[mchapman]

So you deny that there were thousands of occupants on their way to work inside the towers? That people driving their cars along the street during their morning commute? That local businesses would be opening up for the day? What'd they do close off the entire downtown financial district of Mahattan to civilians?


.................................................. ................. wow......................

No, I don't deny they were there. I would like to see their testimonies saying that they saw planes.

[Jonnyclueless]

As someone who was there and with other people who were there, I really have to laugh at the loons who think it was video fakery. I don't think it gets any more idiotic than that. Do these people not understand why they get laughed at?

[Drudgewire]

No, I don't deny they were there. I would like to see their testimonies saying that they saw planes.


After a few years here I thought, having seen it all, there was no longer a need for the jaw-drop emote to convey how flabbergasted I was by twoofer idiocy.

But...

:jaw-dropp

[Mancman]

No, I don't deny they were there. I would like to see their testimonies saying that they saw planes.

Good lord.

There's the black 'gash' aka smoke corroborated in two other shots:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2djds75.jpg

I guess you'll admit the Naudet footage is not faked, and it's just smoke?

Absolute proof, no. Absolutely insane. Absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely laughable. Yes.

[mchapman]

Good lord.

There's the black 'gash' aka smoke corroborated in two other shots:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2djds75.jpg

I guess you'll admit the Naudet footage is not faked, and it's just smoke?

Absolute proof, no. Absolutely insane. Absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely laughable. Yes.

How do we know these shots aren't faked?

[bynmdsue]

#164 prophecy

#169 prophecy fulfilled

[Foolmewunz]

Please provide these thousands of testimonies.

No. 11,234.... Me. I was there. I saw the second plane hit, live, with my very own eyes.

[Jonnyclueless]

Because you have not proven they are fake. And if every piece of video that existed was fake, it would still not change the fact that 1000s of people saw what happened there without the use of cameras.

And this notion that uch a diabolical caper would be pulled off on the hopes that no one would be watching? Especially after the first pane had hit? That's just sheer idiocy.

[mchapman]

No. 11,234.... Me. I was there. I saw the second plane hit, live, with my very own eyes.

I was there and I saw an explosion but no plane.

See how easy it is?

[Mancman]

How do we know these shots aren't faked?

Because there's no evidence of this.

Oh, and because we're of sound mental health? (Well, I am)

[Jonnyclueless]

What was your location mchapman? I was just accross the river on the NJ side. So it's a lot easier to see from there. What were you doing in NY that day? My sister on the other hand was about to hit the WTC by subway, but the first impact had knocked the power out and she was stuck in the tunnel in the dark for a while. When they finally got out, it was just in time for them to witness in person the 2nd plane hitting the tower.

I an plenty of other friends were all there first hand. We're not going to sit here and try to convince a bunch of complete morons who think they can pretend the 1000s of us who were there are all lying and then use complete idiocy claims of video fakery to conclude that.

Do you at least understand WHY people laugh at you and think you're a nutcase? Do you understand why people are offended that you make a mockery of a tragedy that many of us had to witness?

[mchapman]

What was your location mchapman? I was just accross the river on the NJ side. So it's a lot easier to see from there. What were you doing in NY that day? My sister on the other hand was about to hit the WTC by subway, but the first impact had knocked the power out and she was stuck in the tunnel in the dark for a while. When they finally got out, it was just in time for them to witness in person the 2nd plane hitting the tower.

I an plenty of other friends were all there first hand. We're not going to sit here and try to convince a bunch of complete morons who think they can pretend the 1000s of us who were there are all lying and then use complete idiocy claims of video fakery to conclude that.

Do you at least understand WHY people laugh at you and think you're a nutcase? Do you understand why people are offended that you make a mockery of a tragedy that many of us had to witness?

Had to witness? You don't have to rubberneck at tragedies.

[mchapman]

People keep making the claim that 1000's saw the second plane. Ok, I'll make this easy.

Produce 50 people who saw a plane and I'll shut up and go away.

Fair enough?

[defaultdotxbe]

Had to witness? You don't have to rubberneck at tragedies.
of course you dont, it ruins no-plan theories

[Drudgewire]

I was there and I saw an explosion but no plane.

See how easy it is?


I was watching last year's Super Bowl but turned my head and missed the David Tyree catch. Since I only saw it on replay, that means I can't prove anyone else really saw it either and the footage could have been doctored.

Therefore as far as I'm concerned the Patriots did indeed go undefeated last year and won the big game. Sorry Giants fans, we're going to need all that confetti back. :(

[Jonnyclueless]

Had to witness? You don't have to rubberneck at tragedies.

Look you little wanna be lemming crackpot, we don't choose to rubber neck. While I know you can't comprehend what its like to witness something devistating or anything outside of youtube watched on the computer mom and dad got you, some of us have no choice.

It might be easy for you to make a mockery of this just as it is easy for writers from AFP to make a mockery of the holocaust. But while you're playing your little idiotic games to fulfill your fantasies that compensate for your feeling of lack of purpose in life and your lack of attention, the rest of us have to deal with reality.

Forgive me for not being understanding when some little pip squeek who probably was in diapers at the time of the event wants to use it to justify being picked on in school and dreams of playing the unsung hero that no one listened to, but now they will because he was the lone hero who knew the truth. And then all the kids that picked on you will be sorry and your purpose in life will be fulfilled.

On that note, we should once again point out that you, like all the many lemmings before you who make the same arguments verbatim, have yet to provide evidence of an inside job. Heck, you're too much of a coward to even admit what you believe happened because you know that your own hypothesis can't hold up to your childish argument tactics.

[defaultdotxbe]

People keep making the claim that 1000's saw the second plane. Ok, I'll make this easy.

Produce 50 people who saw a plane and I'll shut up and go away.

Fair enough?
since you now appear to be claiming Flight 175 was faked as well as Flight 11 would you like to respond to this?

I had to jump in.

Let's look at this from another angle entirely. Let's assume that your allegation is true - That this video was doctored to appear that a plane had impacted WTC. If this is in fact true, then every single TV station that aired that footage is also complicit. This doctored footage would have to have been delivered to the television station(s) in the NYC area that were covering the event live. It would have been brought back to the Master Control area where the tape machines for on-air are kept. It doesn't end with the operator placing the tape into the machine and pressing play, either.

In order for this to have been pulled off, the Technical Director in the control room would have placed that tape machine on the on-air program source, with the various station CG ("live" keys, and such) superimposed over it. He/she would have used this tape rather than the usual tower-cam or helicopter shot, which if we follow the OP's allegations, would have showed a completely intact building.

This is ludicrous. I have worked in the TV business for a while now so I'm qualified to debunk this particular aspect of it. So - a shadowy NWO operative drops the tape off with instructions with what to do with it...no, no, that wouldn't work. It'd sit there on the receptionist's cart until someone from Engineering came down and got it. No, there would have been a team of armed "AGENTS WOO!!!" that would have stood directly behind the Master Control or Tape Operator as well as the Technical Director in the Production Control room and made sure they complied. In addition, these shadow operatives would have briefed the news director, producers, and on-air talent on what to say. I would make a call to WNBC's master control folks to see if anything like this happened back in 2001, but that would be insulting. You're more than welcome to do it if you wish.

This just points out the most likely scenario for this supposedly doctored footage making on the air and being presented as fact. I'm always 3 steps ahead of truthers so here's a couple counters to what I believe the retorts will be:

1. Maybe they shot the entire coverage beforehand and just aired the entire thing as if it were live.

Not possible. This would be conceivable had mass digital storage been utilized widely back then. How long was the coverage event? Several hours at LEAST. The capacity to store that video digitally and replay it on the air didn't really exist at the time, not unless they deleted all of their digitally stored local commercials/paid programs to make room. No TV station is going to do that - that's what generate their revenue. Ah, but maybe it was rolled off of tape! NO. Even today, the longest duration for a DigiBeta or Beta SP tape is about 80 minutes. These are the standard tape formats for TV stations. Even if they had recorded it on several tapes and rolled them out over the air, there would be a visible switch in the coverage as the Master Control router took one tape machine offline and put the other one on the air.

2. Mebbe they pirated the signal LOLZ!

No sir, I don't think so. There hasn't been an incident of broadcast signal intrusion since the Max Headroom incident in Chicago back in 1987...before that Captain Midnight managed to override the HBO uplink for a few minutes...that's it. The station would have used either a point-to-point studio to transmitter RF link, but most likely they're using fiberoptics to send their program signal to their transmitter - which would be located in an area outside of the greater city limits owing to RF hazards. Perhaps the NWO was able to somehow cut into the fiber cable between the studio and the transmitter and inject their doctored news footage with enough signal strength to override the actual TV signal, but you would have seen the line get cut at some point - the TV station would have gone dark for however long it took them to get their pirate signal on the line to the transmitter. I don't think that happened, Jeeves.

mchapman, if you would be so kind as to explain to me how it was that this doctored footage made it on the air?

Sorry this was so longwinded, but I think we're looking at game, set, and match here.

[beachnut]

I was there and I saw an explosion but no plane.

See how easy it is?
It was an impact, not an explosion, then there was a fire ball but you see, the plane entered the building with 1300 pounds of TNT kinetic energy you lack the understanding to grasp!

You saw an impact and a fireball, no explosion; the KE fooled you, GOT Physics?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11realdumbstuffagain.jpg

An explosion would have outward blast effects, you FAILED.

[mchapman]

Look you little wanna be lemming crackpot, we don't choose to rubber neck. While I know you can't comprehend what its like to witness something devistating or anything outside of youtube watched on the computer mom and dad got you, some of us have no choice.

It might be easy for you to make a mockery of this just as it is easy for writers from AFP to make a mockery of the holocaust. But while you're playing your little idiotic games to fulfill your fantasies that compensate for your feeling of lack of purpose in life and your lack of attention, the rest of us have to deal with reality.

Forgive me for not being understanding when some little pip squeek who probably was in diapers at the time of the event wants to use it to justify being picked on in school and dreams of playing the unsung hero that no one listened to, but now they will because he was the lone hero who knew the truth. And then all the kids that picked on you will be sorry and your purpose in life will be fulfilled.

On that note, we should once again point out that you, like all the many lemmings before you who make the same arguments verbatim, have yet to provide evidence of an inside job. Heck, you're too much of a coward to even admit what you believe happened because you know that your own hypothesis can't hold up to your childish argument tactics.

Ooh I think I hit a nerve there.

[Jonnyclueless]

People keep making the claim that 1000's saw the second plane. Ok, I'll make this easy.

Produce 50 people who saw a plane and I'll shut up and go away.

Fair enough?

No, you won't shut up. And what you are trying to tell us that in the morning rush hour of Manhattan, where about 5 million people are located at that time, after a huge plane crash that almost every person in the world outside of Manhattan became aware of and was watching. That no one happened to be looking? That in a few city blocks with over a million people just in that vicinity, that everyone there was looking elsewhere?

Do you not realize how absolutely idiotic that is? Do you realize how idiotic it is for you to sit here and tell us that we're all lying about being there? If you had 50 testimonies, why would you believe them? If you're going to believe that in a small area with over a million people in it, that none of them were paying attention to the burning skyscraper next to them, what do you expect?

Just give us ONE person that has some physical evidence of an inside job.

[Drudgewire]

Ooh I think I hit a nerve there.


That's all you're looking to do. Guess it's Miller time. :rolleyes:

[Foolmewunz]

I was there and I saw an explosion but no plane.

See how easy it is?

Then you are either making it up, or you weren't looking. You can choose to tell us which one.

[mchapman]

No, you won't shut up. And what you are trying to tell us that in the morning rush hour of Manhattan, where about 5 million people are located at that time, after a huge plane crash that almost every person in the world outside of Manhattan became aware of and was watching. That no one happened to be looking? That in a few city blocks with over a million people just in that vicinity, that everyone there was looking elsewhere?

Do you not realize how absolutely idiotic that is? Do you realize how idiotic it is for you to sit here and tell us that we're all lying about being there? If you had 50 testimonies, why would you believe them? If you're going to believe that in a small area with over a million people in it, that none of them were paying attention to the burning skyscraper next to them, what do you expect?

Just give us ONE person that has some physical evidence of an inside job.

Right, so we have 5 million people in the vicinity and thousands who saw a plane. It should be easy for you to produce just 50 of them.

[Jonnyclueless]

Right, so we have 5 million people in the vicinity and thousands who saw a plane. It should be easy for you to produce just 50 of them.

So you are requesting that 50 people sign up to this forum to convince you? And you don't see the stupidity in that request? Just as you don't see the stupidity in the claim that with 5 million people on that island that day that not a single person was watching the burning building that was just hit by a plane. What do you suppose those 5 million people were doing instead? Please just answer that question.

If it helps, as someone who was there, I can tell you what they were doing because as someone who was there I saw the 1000s and 1000s of people who like me were all gathering to watch. according to your theory, everyone was pre-occupied with something else and weren't watching the buildings. And using your idiotic logic, everyone that was there should also be here and should have a written statement right? And you wonder why we laugh at you?

Actually your request would not be hard to fulfill seeing as my sister was hired by the city to compile artifacts and statements from people to use for the NYC 9/11 museum. But this isn't about facts. This is about your little fantasies of nonsense. If someone is going to pretend that millions of people didn't notice the events right in front of them, why would such an idiot be swayed by 50 people?

[twinstead]

After a few years here I thought, having seen it all, there was no longer a need for the jaw-drop emote to convey how flabbergasted I was by twoofer idiocy.



I am just as flabbergasted that somebody could even be alive who hasn't read at least dozens of accounts and heard dozens of eye witness reports from one of the THOUSANDS of people who where there when those planes hit.

Like I said. A special kind of stupid.

[Foolmewunz]

Right, so we have 5 million people in the vicinity and thousands who saw a plane. It should be easy for you to produce just 50 of them.


Yes, in fact, I can produce about 150 of them, by myself. We watched the second plane hit from several very large picture windows in an office in Jersey City.

So, I, a regular all around swell guy, can come up with 150 people, by name, who saw the plane hit Tower 2*. And from the people downstairs when we were forced to evacuate, I can count another several hundred as the entire conversation was about just witnessing the second one as proof positive that it was some sort of attack (remember, this was live in real life, no one was certain yet that it was an attack and many of us were still "hoping"((poor choice of gerunds, but you get my drift)) that it was some sort of accident at WTC1).

*And no, I'm not posting their names, but if you send me your personal contact details by PM, I'll be happy to give them to the ex-Marine drill sergeant who I worked with at the time.

[mchapman]

So, none of you can link me to just 50 testimonies. Very telling.

[mchapman]

I am just as flabbergasted that somebody could even be alive who hasn't read at least dozens of accounts and heard dozens of eye witness reports from one of the THOUSANDS of people who where there when those planes hit.

Like I said. A special kind of stupid.

Feel free to link to them and I will be happy to read them.

[beachnut]

Feel free to link to them and I will be happy to read them.
Thousands of people saw the second plane, to deny that fact, is a terminally stupid idea. Do you have terminally stupid ideas on 9/11? Yes you do.

[mchapman]

Thousands of people saw with their own eyes the second plane, to deny that fact, is a terminally stupid idea. Do you have terminally stupid ideas on 9/11? Yes you do.

If thousands saw the plane and you know that thousands saw the plane then you must have read their testimony. So link me to some of them, whats the delay?

[defaultdotxbe]

so how did they put the fake planes into live broadcasts from multiple networks?

[JimBenArm]

Feel free to link to them and I will be happy to read them.
And just as quickly dismiss them out-of-hand as you did the others posted here, since they would require you to abandon your absurd fantasy.

What's the point of sending them to him? Arguing with no-planers is like discussing quantum physics with your dog. You get it, the other one just drools.

[Foolmewunz]

This is one of the most idiotic pseudo-derails in JREFF history. Are you planning to slink away in the confusion while all us befuddled debunkers scratch our heads and ask "Who was that masked man, anyway?"

They have the crash of the Hindenburg on film, with an announcer who was there live. And there were survivors and workers who saw it. In true TM fashion, are you saying that it's not real unless one of us takes the trouble to make a YouTube video (which you are required by Article 11 of the TM membership code to believe without questioning). Or that if I say there were dozens of witnesses to the demise of the Hindenburg, your only answer is going to be that I have to produce the links to the people or the claim isn't real?

Do you not own a history book or newspaper subscription? Can you not google? Try the periodical sections of the local library (I'm sure The Guardian has archives)... I suggest reading copy from, say, Sep 12, 2001. You'll find more than your fifty.

This is a derail to cover up for the fact that THE OP IS PURE IDIOCY AND YOU'VE BEEN SHOWN TO BE MR. WRONGIEST WRONG OF WRONGVILLE. Nice try. Retire to a neutral corner and start some other ridiculous and ill-supported nonsense. This one's not just toast, it's burnt toast.

[dudalb]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg


You beat me to it.
These accusations of 9/11 video fakery are even stupider then all the video "evidence" that the Moonbats come up with to prove that the Apollo missions were faked. I can't think of anything worse to say.

[Totovader]

If someone goes through the trouble of collecting 50 names and testimony of those 50 names to corroborate that there was in fact a plane, what good would it do?

Would that information be enough to abandon these stupid no-plane theory?

I would be willing to bet money that it wouldn't. 11,000 names wouldn't be enough.

It's what we call a fools errand- you're simply stalling to avoid the facts.

[Jonnyclueless]

So, none of you can link me to just 50 testimonies. Very telling.

Once again, you are implying that out of the millions of people who were there first hand that none of them noticed? And you determine this because no one has given you a link to their testimonies? This further implies that unless you have written testimonies, that millions of people were not there that day. I can account for a couple thousand who were right by me. No one wwalked around collecting testimonies.

Either you are implying that there were not millions of people in the city during rush hour. Or you are implying that millions of people all saw no plane which contradicts the official consensus, but millions of people are all keeping quiet about this. New Yorkers no less.

Do you still not understand why you are being laughed at?


Stil waiting for one piece of physical evidence of an inside job.

[dudalb]

No Planers...you gotta love them.
It says something that their basic idea is so insane that for a while most truthers, as wacky as they are, thought the No Planers were crazy.
But as the number dwindle, and the truthers are shrunk to the hard core insane, I would not be surprised if the No planers become the majority in the Twoof movement.

[JimBenArm]

No Planers...you gotta love them.
It says something that their basic idea is so insane that for a while most truthers, as wacky as they are, thought the No Planers were crazy.
But as the number dwindle, and the truthers are shrunk to the hard core insane, I would not be surprised if the No planers become the majority in the Twoof movement.
Well, they are the majority of those still posting here, as far as I can tell. Which is an indictment of the truth movement. The only ones left are the absolute crazies. Chemtrail believers are rational in comparison.

[Grizzly Bear]

If someone goes through the trouble of collecting 50 names and testimony of those 50 names to corroborate that there was in fact a plane, what good would it do?

Would that information be enough to abandon these stupid no-plane theory?

I would be willing to bet money that it wouldn't. 11,000 names wouldn't be enough.

It's what we call a fools errand- you're simply stalling to avoid the facts.

30 bucks says that what I post here will be discreditted and goal posts will be shifted again:


If thousands saw the plane and you know that thousands saw the plane then you must have read their testimony. So link me to some of them, whats the delay?

NY times interviewed hundreds of rescue personel regarding the events (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html)

and

this (http://www.flcv.com/wtcplane.html)

[Drudgewire]

Chemtrail believers are rational in comparison.


Let's not go overboard. Chemtrail believers are LESS CRAZY in comparison. ;)

[Foolmewunz]

30 bucks says that what I post here will be discreditted and goal posts will be shifted again:




NY times interviewed hundreds of rescue personel regarding the events (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html)

and

this (http://www.flcv.com/wtcplane.html)

Thanx, GrizzlyB....

MChapman? Oh, MChapman? Hello? Hey, I guess he was honest and he's gone for good, now. That's over 50 and the guy was good to his word. I'm impressed.:spjimlad::spjimlad::spjimlad:

[mchapman]

Ah, I see the goalposts were shifted again. I am not interested in what government employees were forced to say. I want the eyewitnesses you described, You knpw, the ones just going about their business when they saw a plane.

[Drudgewire]

I am not interested in what government employees were forced to say.


At this point it's best to put you ignore before I get in a LOT of trouble here.

[Jonnyclueless]

mchapman

Please answer the question. Are you saying that the millions of people there watching didn't exist, that they were all looking at something other than the huge burning skyscraper hit by a plane, or that they are all keeping quiet? or do you have an alternative claim?

[16.5]

Ah, I see the goalposts were shifted again. I am not interested in what government employees were forced to say. I want the eyewitnesses you described, You knpw, the ones just going about their business when they saw a plane.

BWHAHAHA!! Can we call Websters and request that this No-Planer's post be added to the definition of hypocrisy??

Anyhow, back to the OP, have Chapman, did you see how all those guys followed the sound of the plane?

Terrific stuff!

[JimBenArm]

Ah, I see the goalposts were shifted again. I am not interested in what government employees were forced to say. I want the eyewitnesses you described, You knpw, the ones just going about their business when they saw a plane.
Yes, of course they were forced to say it. They all lack personal integrity and morals, obviously, since they work for the government. Not a single one would ever say "shove it" and say what really happened.

So, we can pretty much conclude you've never met anyone in government employment anywhere, correct? Other than the DMV, who we all agree are just evil.

[twinstead]

It is thought by some truthers that no planers are actually people hired by the government to discredit the truth movement. I mean seriously--who could actually be THAT stupid?

One word: COINTELPRO

[AJM8125]

Of course Gravy has covered this too, check his links for the list of sourced witness statements. Can't link you there myself, I'm on my iPhone.

[mchapman]

mchapman

Please answer the question. Are you saying that the millions of people there watching didn't exist, that they were all looking at something other than the huge burning skyscraper hit by a plane, or that they are all keeping quiet? or do you have an alternative claim?

No, the millions existed. And im sure most of them were looking at the towers, so whats the delay on producing just 50 that saw a plane?

[Grizzly Bear]

Ah, I see the goalposts were shifted again. I am not interested in what government employees were forced to say. I want the eyewitnesses you described, You knpw, the ones just going about their business when they saw a plane.
As expected (http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/chrishorgen/Funnay/facepalm.jpg)

Move along with your fantasy then, clearly firefighters must be the paid government shills we're always told about. Okay, got it...

[Grizzly Bear]

No, the millions existed. And im sure most of them were looking at the towers, so whats the delay on producing just 50 that saw a plane?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084658&postcount=203

Answered several times over...

[WildCat]

Like I said. A special kind of stupid.
Mental illness is more likely.

[ElMondoHummus]

So, none of you can link me to just 50 testimonies. Very telling.

What? You mean to tell us you can't find any yourself? The only telling thing about that is your inability to research.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

Here is a small subset of examples from that page:


Rob Marchesano, a construction foreman, was working at a site at La Guardia Street and West Third. He heard a roar overhead, and saw a plane flying by, low and fast and at an angle that at first made him fear that it would hit his crane. He and his co-workers watched in astonishment and then horror as the plane approached the North Tower of the World Trade Center. He noticed that the plane seemed to tilt at the last second, as though someone wanted the wings to take out as many floors as possible.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15)


Oh god. I'm shaking. A plane just went by my window, it was flying WAY too low, and I was thinking, "How ironic," I wrote about this in my book, and it crashed. ...Oh God, people are dead now. Oh god. –Stacy Horn, founder of ECHO, posting at 8:49 on 11 September, 2001

Source (http://nymag.com/news/features/20288/)


A witness who works in the strategic planning department at The New York Times, Alan Flippen, said that as he came to work on 46th Street just before 9 he saw an American Airlines Boeing 767 flying ``very low in the direction of the World Trade Center towers.''

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/national/11WIRE-PLAN2.html?ex=1222920000&en=65e558891e6192fb&ei=5070)

My name is Jeff Benjamin and I was visiting a client, Axcelera Specialty Risk, on the 83rd floor of the North Tower when we observed an approaching aircraft (American Airlines Flt.11)from a distance of aprox. 3-4 miles. At the time we initially spotted the plane, it appeared to be level with us. We could distinctly identify the American airlines insignia and my client commented that perhaps the plane had taken off from Kennedy and was experiencing mechanical problems. As the plane approached us it seemed to climb. I stood up from the conference table and walked over to the window assuming as everyone did that there was no imminent danger. As the plane came closer we could see that it was traveling at a high rate of speed and the sound of the engines intensified. Immediately before impact we could see images in the cockpit and the plane banked sharply. A split second later we heard an echoing shot, fell to the floor and observed a fireball followed by debris which struck the side of the building. At the same time you could feel the building sway every so slightly for a brief moment. We immediately retreated towards the main part of the office where we noticed a huge fireball shooting out of the elevator shaft which quickly disappeared.

Source (http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7639)


I heard the loud roar of airplane engines outside. I turned in my chair so that I could see out the window. About three or four plane lengths away, I saw a huge jetliner coming at the building. I said, "That guy is low!" I spoke loud enough that my colleague sitting in the cubicle next to mine heard me. I saw the nose of the plane and then the smooth underbelly and one of the wings. It was just above me, a little bit to the right, and slightly bent so the wing over me was higher than the other wing. I couldn't see any windows or recognise any markings but I noticed the landing gear was up. It had just registered that this was no small plane when it entered our building two floors above me.

Source (http://www.amazon.com/September-11-History-Dean-Murphy/dp/0385507682)

This above link is itself a compendium of links. Other testimonies, some of which are already found on the above link others of which are not, can be found here:
http://thememoryhole.org/911/

As well as here:
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/

For those who'd rather read something on paper, here's a book:
http://www.amazon.com/September-11-History-Dean-Murphy/dp/0385507682

And let's not forget the first responder testimony, some of which does indeed describe watching the jets impacts:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

There's also reporting of what the 9-1-1 operators heard:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/nyregion/01operator.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/nyregion/01tapes.html

I mean, even trying to pretend that the information is not out there is just flabbergasting. Do you honestly think that playing link-gotcha is going to support your case? And are you honestly so benighted that you cannot find these yourself, therefore you need "help"?

Your case is not only unsupportable, it's not even new. Gravy's had these testimonies displayed, and links to others for what, over a year now? Two? And you're only now trying to imply that there were no eyewitnesses? And you're only now trying to imply that the only people who've claimed to have witnessed the jets were government employees?

Old. Long discredited. Baseless. Demonstrably wrong. That is the only logical judgement of your thesis. There were indeed eyewitnesses to the impacts.

[HyJinX]

No, the millions existed. And im sure most of them were looking at the towers, so whats the delay on producing just 50 that saw a plane?

Why 50? Why is that number important? If I produce 50 people who tell you that 9/11 wasn't an inside job...is that going to make you believe it?

[mchapman]

Mental illness is more likely.

Reported.

[twinstead]

Well, I guess there's these people:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

ETA I guess others beat me to it

[defaultdotxbe]

Ah, I see the goalposts were shifted again. I am not interested in what government employees were forced to say. I want the eyewitnesses you described, You knpw, the ones just going about their business when they saw a plane.
firefighters and paramedics are government employees?

thats news to me

[Pardalis]

For a newbie you seem quite familiar with the report function.

[Drudgewire]

For a newbie you seem quite familiar with the report function.


I was wondering if anyone else noticed that.

[mchapman]

For a newbie you seem quite familiar with the report function.

Forums tend to have them.

[twinstead]

Well, that settles it. Regardless of how many people actually SAW the plane hit the building, some dubious compression artifacts in a jpeg video show otherwise. Therefore, there must be some other explanation. Mass hysteria? Mass hypnotism? Mass magic mushrooms?

I guess we'll never know.

[dudalb]

firefighters and paramedics are government employees?

thats news to me


Not the Federal Government. But the FDNY are employees of NYC, and the paramedics were probably a mixture of FDNY paramedics and those employed by Private hospitals and Ambulance firms.

[Jonnyclueless]

No, the millions existed. And im sure most of them were looking at the towers, so whats the delay on producing just 50 that saw a plane?

What report producing just 50 that saw a plane? Why would there be a report?

So you concur that millions of people watched the plane hit the buildings correct?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

so how did they put the fake planes into live broadcasts from multiple networks?

Like this. (http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html)

[Crazytimes]

What? You mean to tell us you can't find any yourself? The only telling thing about that is your inability to research.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

Here is a small subset of examples from that page:


Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15)


Source (http://nymag.com/news/features/20288/)


Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/national/11WIRE-PLAN2.html?ex=1222920000&en=65e558891e6192fb&ei=5070)


Source (http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7639)


Source (http://www.amazon.com/September-11-History-Dean-Murphy/dp/0385507682)

This above link is itself a compendium of links. Other testimonies, some of which are already found on the above link others of which are not, can be found here:
http://thememoryhole.org/911/

As well as here:
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/

For those who'd rather read something on paper, here's a book:
http://www.amazon.com/September-11-History-Dean-Murphy/dp/0385507682

And let's not forget the first responder testimony, some of which does indeed describe watching the jets impacts:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

There's also reporting of what the 9-1-1 operators heard:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/nyregion/01operator.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/nyregion/01tapes.html

I mean, even trying to pretend that the information is not out there is just flabbergasting. Do you honestly think that playing link-gotcha is going to support your case? And are you honestly so benighted that you cannot find these yourself, therefore you need "help"?

Your case is not only unsupportable, it's not even new. Gravy's had these testimonies displayed, and links to others for what, over a year now? Two? And you're only now trying to imply that there were no eyewitnesses? And you're only now trying to imply that the only people who've claimed to have witnessed the jets were government employees?

Old. Long discredited. Baseless. Demonstrably wrong. That is the only logical judgement of your thesis. There were indeed eyewitnesses to the impacts.


Noooo....he means MORE people that werent told what to say. Video is faked, eye witnesses were told to lie. This is getting comical.

:reported

[JimBenArm]

Like this. (http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html)
You link to stuff from Ace Baker, and expect to be taken seriously?

:dl:

It is to laugh!

[ElMondoHummus]

Reemphasis:

Twinstead's post:
Well, I guess there's these people:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

And my own:
What? You mean to tell us you can't find any yourself? The only telling thing about that is your inability to research.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

Here is a small subset of examples from that page:


Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15)


Source (http://nymag.com/news/features/20288/)


Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/national/11WIRE-PLAN2.html?ex=1222920000&en=65e558891e6192fb&ei=5070)


Source (http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7639)


Source (http://www.amazon.com/September-11-History-Dean-Murphy/dp/0385507682)

This above link is itself a compendium of links. Other testimonies, some of which are already found on the above link others of which are not, can be found here:
http://thememoryhole.org/911/

As well as here:
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/

For those who'd rather read something on paper, here's a book:
http://www.amazon.com/September-11-History-Dean-Murphy/dp/0385507682

And let's not forget the first responder testimony, some of which does indeed describe watching the jets impacts:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

There's also reporting of what the 9-1-1 operators heard:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/nyregion/01operator.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/nyregion/01tapes.html

I mean, even trying to pretend that the information is not out there is just flabbergasting. Do you honestly think that playing link-gotcha is going to support your case? And are you honestly so benighted that you cannot find these yourself, therefore you need "help"?

Your case is not only unsupportable, it's not even new. Gravy's had these testimonies displayed, and links to others for what, over a year now? Two? And you're only now trying to imply that there were no eyewitnesses? And you're only now trying to imply that the only people who've claimed to have witnessed the jets were government employees?

Old. Long discredited. Baseless. Demonstrably wrong. That is the only logical judgement of your thesis. There were indeed eyewitnesses to the impacts.

There are over 70 witness testimonies in the Gravy link alone, many more at the other links I provided. The point is that mchapman's challenge is answered beyond his specification. As noted before, there are indeed a plethora of eyewitnesses to the event. No fakery there. There is no chance for any proposal that it was not a witnessed event. There is no opportunity to claim that no one personally saw it, or testified that they saw it.

[Grizzly Bear]

Like this. (http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html)

I can't help to reitterate this:
Well, that settles it. Regardless of how many people actually SAW the plane hit the building, some dubious compression artifacts in a jpeg video show otherwise. Therefore, there must be some other explanation. Mass hysteria? Mass hypnotism? Mass magic mushrooms?

I guess we'll never know.

[Mercutio]

I was thinking that the only options were (in order) 1) Troll, or 2) barely a passing acquaintance with this thing we call reality. Just thought of another, though, and it makes me feel much better (so it must be true).

Thanks, mchapman, for serving as visual aid, illustrating vividly the exact thing Mark Roberts spoke of in his interview! What a commendable public service--no doubt at the cost of significant effort. But like all pros, you made it look natural. The listening public may have thought he was making up "no-planers" (I mean, really--it's like the first person to describe a platypus; no one would believe!), but your performance is spot-on! The impossibly high standards of evidence expected of the actual investigators, compared with the laughably inept "absolute proof"--it is quite simply a textbook example!

So, thank you, and next time I buy Gravy a beer, I hope you'll join us and we can all have a laugh about it!

[defaultdotxbe]

Like this. (http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html)
so how many people does this add to the conspiracy?

heres a list of tv stations in new york:


Channel 2: WCBS-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCBS-TV) - (CBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS)) - New York City, CBS 2
Channel 4: WNBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNBC) - (NBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC)) - New York City, NBC 4
Channel 5: WNYW-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNYW-TV) - (FOX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company)) - New York City, FOX 5 New York, WABD when it was the Flagship station of the DuMont Television Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuMont_Television_Network), became WNEW before 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986)
Channel 6: WNYZ-LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNYZ-LP) - Pulse 87, Low power TV station operation primarily as a radio station
Channel 7: WABC-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WABC-TV) - (ABC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company)) - New York City, ABC 7
Channel 9: WWOR-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR-TV) - (MyNetworkTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyNetworkTV)) - Secaucus, NJ, My 9 (New York City), known as WOR before 1987
Channel 11: WPIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPIX) - (The CW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_CW_Television_Network)) - New York City, CW 11 (formerly WB 11)
Channel 31: WPXN-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPXN-TV) - (ION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ION_Television)) - New York City
NY 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY1): 24-hour local news channel by Time Warner Cable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable), New York City area, New York One
News 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_12_Networks): 24-hour local news cable channel, with distinct channels in sections of the metropolitan area


im certain they each had at least one camera crew out on 9/11, so any planes on any of their tapes must have been faked, necessitating complicity from the camera crews and many others at the station


i think the truthers real beef must be that they are the only people in the country that WEREN'T in on it, and they want to get paid too

[Drudgewire]

Like this. (http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html)


ACE :rule10ing BAKER???? Second time this thread:

:jaw-dropp

[twinstead]

I could have gone many more years without having to force myself to read Ace Baker again. The intrepid musician/investigoogler ROCKS!

[beachnut]

If thousands saw the plane and you know that thousands saw the plane then you must have read their testimony. So link me to some of them, whats the delay?

Yes I can find you a thousand, but you have to pay, I will through in the first eye witness free of research charges, I get 4000 dollar an hour. Minimum one hour and expenses, you own me two Popsicles and 20 ounces of coke.

I estimate one thousand witnesses statement will cost you 4,000,000 dollars. Do you got the money? Well do you?

You can't find one for yourself, how do you expect to understand what they say?

You don't deserve to read this post, nor the thread. I doubt you can handle the truth.


I saw both planes hit.

The post,
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160)
in this tread,
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?p=2041454#post2041454 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?p=2041454#post2041454)
The rest will cost you but I have a few more sources from just this one witnesses. The leads from this one witness will numbers in the hundreds, if you understand reality. Why are all your ideas on 9/11 failed old and refuted years ago?

You are presenting the dumbest 9/11 truth failures; why?

[defaultdotxbe]

you own me two Popsicles and 20 ounces of coke.
i can own you for 2 popsicles and 20oz of coke?

SOLD!

[Drudgewire]

Yes I can find you a thousand, but you have to pay, I will through in the first eye witness free of research charges, I get 4000 dollar an hour. Minimum one hour and expenses, you own me two Popsicles and 20 ounces of coke.

I estimate one thousand witnesses statement will cost you 4,000,000 dollars. Do you got the money? Well do you?


Where the hell can you get 560 grams of coke that cheap? :eye-poppi

[mchapman]

What report producing just 50 that saw a plane? Why would there be a report?

So you concur that millions of people watched the plane hit the buildings correct?

Several people said they saw missiles. Several people say they just saw the building explode. Do you believe them?

[Mercutio]

Several people said they saw missiles. Several people say they just saw the building explode. Do you believe them?

Gee, if only there were a way of quantifying "several", and comparing it to the number who saw planes. Or to know whether the people who "just saw the building explode" were looking up to where the plane would have been, but saw blue sky and then the explosion? Or to see whether there are plane parts or missile parts or no parts at all! Too bad we can only see evidence we already believe in, and only critically examine the stuff that other people believe in. Dontcha just hate that we are built that way?

Keep up the good work--this stuff is just gold!!!

[Pardalis]

Several people said they saw missiles.

Like who?

Several people say they just saw the building explode. Do you believe them?

Well, the buildings did explode in a way. You know, these big fireballs are explosions. If one had missed the planes coming in, then it's a reasonable way to interpret their recollection.

[Jonnyclueless]

Several people said they saw missiles. Several people say they just saw the building explode. Do you believe them?

So your claim is that millions of people all mistakenly saw a plane hit the building? And that it just happened to be caught on every TV camera, but that's the result of a big conspiracy that involved every news network in the world and every news person involved with those news organization that just happened to mimic what millions of people saw in person. And not only saw but felt and heard?

Perhaps you can go into more detail about how they created the sounds and the feelings people felt of the plane flying over?

PS - People saw the buildings explode because there was a large explosions from the impact, so yes I believe them. I don't believe the people who claimed to see a missile because I along with millions of others saw no such thing and there is no video evidence to back it up either.

[mchapman]

Like who?





Like the people who actually reported it to the police, and the police went to investigate at the woolworth building. And the people who spoke to the reporter who said live on air that "some people said they thought they saw a missile"

[Drudgewire]

Like who?


Ah, here come the "it came in like a missile" quotes. It's almost as sad as when we hear a "it sounded like a bomb" quote and these dummies take it literally. :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Like the people who actually reported it to the police, and the police went to investigate at the woolworth building. And the people who spoke to the reporter who said live on air that "some people said they thought they saw a missile"

Could you provide a link?

And what about the rest of my post?

[HyJinX]

Like the people who actually reported it to the police, and the police went to investigate at the woolworth building. And the people who spoke to the reporter who said live on air that "some people said they thought they saw a missile"

Can you cite these people? Are their words documented? Or are you just throwing out information that others have told you.

[mchapman]

Could you provide a link?

And what about the rest of my post?

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

Port Authority Police Officer

"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."

WTC Police Channel 07


As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that [Woolworth] building, you guys better be careful up there.’

NYC Fireman

[Pardalis]

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

I had never heard of that one. Boy, these theories get more moronic by the minute.

[defaultdotxbe]

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/
the first 2 quotes are from an articled entitled "Innuendo, Erroneous Reports Abound In WTC Transcripts"

do the math