New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

estar

That is a very poor argument and I say this with all seriousness. I have seen that part, in fact I sat through all 4. Do you not see highly compressed video clips? You can't conclude the flight path with a line on a 2 dimensional film, things closer are further etc. Angles and perspectives create illusions.

The background is there, but it is blurred.

The reason these videos are put out with such poor quality shots, is that they rely on the poor quality to advance ideas that are against reason.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

Please stop with this non sense of video compression. All of the Videos of 911 arte poorly compressed.
Guys if you don't see the nosecone out you don't see it what can I do? You see an engine well that is a looong engine. You see debris well that’s not a small debris that’s 1/5 of the plane. The poster above pointed out the most compelling evidence of TV fakery and if you decide to ignore it you can go right ahead. If we are split and you cannot see it good for you, it is so obvious I can't demonstrate it any further.
Yes the nosecone passed right through that building without living a hole. The explosions are real as well as the one in the other building. There is an amount of evidence that is overwhelming but if you cannot see it I won’t convince you any further. I am just asking why do you even waste your time writing on this post?

talismann, being a video editor myself, there must be a higher quality version of the video, i'll check around see what I can find, the reason it might looked compressed is because its been put on for stream, its highly likely the creator of the film would have a high quality version out, else the video would be poor, but im just saying from what i've seen so far and I agree with you we need a better version, like a dvd rip.

Originally posted by piacenza
Please stop with this non sense of video compression. All of the Videos of 911 arte poorly compressed.
Guys if you don't see the nosecone out you don't see it what can I do? You see an engine well that is a looong engine. You see debris well that’s not a small debris that’s 1/5 of the plane. The poster above pointed out the most compelling evidence of TV fakery and if you decide to ignore it you can go right ahead. If we are split and you cannot see it good for you, it is so obvious I can't demonstrate it any further.
Yes the nosecone passed right through that building without living a hole. The explosions are real as well as the one in the other building. There is an amount of evidence that is overwhelming but if you cannot see it I won’t convince you any further. I am just asking why do you even waste your time writing on this post?

Piacenza I know you feel pasionate about this, but because the video is in stream quality and is trying to prove that it wasn't planes that hit the building, you really do need a high quality video like a dvd rip to see it everything, else it will be just thrown out by the vast majority. When compressed for stream things that can be normal may seem like something else. So lets try and find a high quality version, post screen caps and investigate, debate further. The thread can go far but people need more than just a stream.

piacenza

It makes a difference. A huge difference, not only the quality, but the way these videos are *CROPPED* and *EDITED*. Trust me, it makes a difference to what your seeing.

You talk about the fuselage, just earlier but have you see what
mister.old.school posted??





Now, that looks a bit different. It to me looks like the ENGINE. That is what compression can do. It can change the shape of the thing your looking at.

The engine flying out is consistent with what happened at the Empire State Building years ago when a plane penetrated it and the engine flew out the other side and that was a smaller b-25 moving at only 200 mph.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

Ok, this is very interesting. Now I'm not saying I subscribe to your point of view, but I have to give credit where it's due. Good job digging this up.

I tend to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. However, I'm not totally convinced. But needless to say, something is going on here. It might have everything to do with the attacks, or it might not. But something is going on. And we'd be ignorant to not see it. But if it's a government planned attack to support a war, or if it truly was Al-Qaida that did the attacks, I'm not completely sure. And we'll probably never know.

Peace,
FK

The Empire State building....

history1900s.about.com...

One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

Then engine went through the Empire State Building *FRONT AND BACK*.

I'm not a big fan of the no planes theory either, though 3D hologram technology is currently being developed to handle such an event.

2. High Resolution 3D Sensing and Modeling
The dimension software is capable of interfacing 3D sensors and displaying the acquired data in real-time in the shared 3D environment.

Controllers at a busy metropolitan airport are monitoring air traffic by tracking the positions of miniature airplanes flying around inside a scaled down real three dimensional model of their air space. The display shows real 3-D airplanes as they are picked up by radar, and displays aircraft take-offs, landings, and holding patterns. Early warning of dangerous conditions are visually highlighted by flashing any planes that are approaching too closely. Air traffic control safety is greatly enhanced by the controller's use of real 3-D airspace simulators.

As much money as the American Military Complex has sunk into it each year, I'm sure this technology could have been mastered by the mid 90's if they wanted to. And they wanted to.

Originally posted by tombangelta
Does seem very strange that it would still be intact. From the video it does appear to be behind the explosion.
[edit on 063030p://05066 by tombangelta]

What I find strange is that there was no nosecone found on the streets. How is this disproven? "Doctored footage", "Illusion"?

Now I will try to post as calm as I can.
Please look at this image I used the same Zoom. Can you honeslty say this is the engine? Can you honestly say its some debris? ITS ONE FIFTH OF THE PLANE AT LEAST. I really do not understand what is so hard to see. Is this bad compression? Can you find a high res video? I mean there should be a digital archive.

mister.old.school-

piacenza will not respond because there is no logical progression to the theory this crew is pressing. The entire video series is now in ethical question because they say nothing about the other shot of the supposed "nose cone", and the fact that they blame it on a "cgi operator" bungling the shot. Simply glancing at the "cgi/fuselage" comparison image shows that it is indeed not the same thing. He said himself he will not respond to you until you agree with him that the anomaly exiting the building and the pre-entrance fuselage are the same thing.

How exactly are you supposed to have logical debate with people that refuse to completely analyze the "evidence" that they themselves have put on an untouchable pedestal?

[edit on 7-6-2007 by PartChimp]

Originally posted by piacenza
Now I will try to post as calm as I can.
Please look at this image I used the same Zoom. Can you honeslty say this is the engine? Can you honestly say its some debris? ITS ONE FIFTH OF THE PLANE AT LEAST. I really do not understand what is so hard to see. Is this bad compression? Can you find a high res video? I mean there should be a digital archive.

So now there are planes?! "IT'S ONE FIFTH OF THE PLANE AT LEAST". Or are you asserting that it is in fact two identically bungled cgi shots? I am getting very confused...

[edit on 7-6-2007 by PartChimp]

piacenza

Take a deep breath, relax. One more.

It isn't something to get upset over. You have to use logic. Your relying an awful lot on your eyes. Sometimes our eyes see what is correct. Sometimes they see what is WRONG.

Let me give you a quick example.

Be patient for a moment.

Do you see this picture? LOOK AT SQUARE A and then B





Square *A* and Square *B* are the exact same color! They look totally different. But trust me, they are the same exact color. It is the surrounding area that is confusing the eyes.


Okay, now let us look at the 'Engine' or whatever you want to call it. I noticed in the gif posted earlier, that the *SHAPE* changed. In the framed sequence of the gif.

In one of the frames it looked very much like the engine. The end shape. Keep in mind I posted that a plane engine has done this very thing before, when the Empire State Building was struck.

So it is consistent from that point of view.

We have to be honest. It is very unlikely 2 different CGI experts made the same mistake at exactly the same point.

So, if you don't want to accept the Engine. That is fine. But before jumping to CGI, your better off assuming that this plane was no ordinary plane, it could have been a miltary jet of very strong material.

Now, I am not saying it is that. But I am just saying that this is consistent. Regarding what your talking about with the zoom. This is highly compressed stuff. With this type of stuff we get artifacts.

That is why I am asking for good quality pictures and films so we all can make more informed decisions. Don't you agree? Isn't it in our best interest to have Good Quality Images?



[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

Sure can you point out where those high res videos are? I would have guessed they would be everywhere but they are not how come? The size is 1/4 of the plane 1/4...thats a big damn engine.
How come there is no hole in the other side of the building? Come on give it some credit I cannot beleive nothing had made you think its impossible.

Can we get back on the subject?

This childish and personal back-and-forth is getting lame. You guys should just email amongst yourselves and stop interviewing each other and asking the same question over and over and hoping for a response.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

There is one simple thing that no one seems to realize. There were hundreds of eye witnesses who can attest to seeing a plane hit the WTC. Were they all dillutional? Did FOX and CNN "edit" their vision?

I just saw the fourth video and it looks as if most of the first interviewed "plane crash" eyewitnesses worked for FOX, CNN, ABC, MSNBC etc. One reported claimed he thought it was a missile, one said people on the street believed it was a missile (and he was quickly corrected) but all others said plane.

There really wouldn't be a need to edit something coming from yourself. Not that I am saying any of this is an actual fact, but it is very interesting. I know there are plenty of reporters and media persons living in New York but its amazing that almost every major station had its own personal eye witness from the staff.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by lee anoma]

piacenza


I believe a lot of the footage is archived but one has to look for it. But look again at my illusion that I posted, your eyes can be a source of deception. That is why it is so dangerous to do analysis by our eyes using film alone. We have to also look for eyewitnesses who agree on the primary details.

We also have to rely on more then one angle. Angles perspectives and these things are difficult to deal with, but when you add in the compression it adds something.

But even *IF* you don't want to accept what I am saying, then look at this way. Many people that day saw a plane. If there really was NO plane, many people would be saying it, and I mean many.

One thing that came to mind which would explain the difference between the no-plane theory and planes theory is that maybe they did photoshop or CGI the tv-footage, but maybe not to add a plane but to hide one that isn't what the official story says. Some people have suggested a missile and others that it was a gargo plane. One reporter claims that there were no passenger windows and a blue logo on the front. Little CGI would easily hide these if that's what happened.

There are a couple of flaws I see with the CGI nose-in nose out theory.

The first thing to understand is: In order to obscure an object from view in video compositing (for instance a plane passing behind or through a building) the object behind needs to be masked by something.

In the case as presented by the original TV-Fakery vid, the 'CGI operator' would have to have a 'matte' to obscure the plane while it passed through the building to avoid having it fly in front of the tower.

If, as the video suggests the matte moved out of sync with the tower you would see two things not apparent in the video.
1. The 'CGI' plane would be visible over the tower on the right side briefly.

and more tellingly

2. The CGI plane would appear OVER the debris as it emerged from behind the 'tower matte', not behind or in it.

These are the simplest things I see wrong with the CGI theory long before I get into the ridiculous ideas of 'realtime CGI operators' or 'Live matchmoving' or even 'why would you have a left side of the tower matte at all if you know the plane should disapear into the tower?'.

Sorry, the CGI theory is too silly.

the nose out is a serious problem with regards to actual physics.

because, the nose is not pushing any columns ahead of it.
period.
and then, this super hard penetrator just disappears, instead of continuing it's trajectory.

it can pass through a building with out deforming, but cannot continue through air!?

There are some inconsistencies with what happened on that day.

Some unexplained phenomenas that makes a person think, saying planes hit the buildings doesn't quite satisfy the instinct of perception.

Got to be open to the frequencies.

Originally posted by piacenza
Now I will try to post as calm as I can.

That would be nice. I believe that this is an important topic (9/11 conspiracy theories) and it behooves us to give it the calm and rational critical analysis it deserves.

Now. We're jumping around a great deal in this thread. I'd like to ask the purveyors of these "CGI" or "no plane" or "TV Fakery" theories to look back a few pages and address some important questions that appear to have been overlooked in a rush to add new material to the discussion.

For reference, here's a summary.

I'm looking for that nose section in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A member looking to see if the 911researchers.com group (of which bsregistration and Nico "Conspiracy Faker" Haupt are port) have engaged any professionals as part of their research:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are issues with the coloring assumptions within the videos you're analyzing:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here, I'm looking for input as to why the artifact that appears to be the "nose section" is not simply ejected dust/debris from the high-pressue explosion happening in the building:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here, a member is asking for your feedback on the possibility of two different (government sponsored?) CGI artists making the same exact mistake:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This member still seems dissatisfied with the explanations from your group regarding the multitude of people who saw passenger aircraft strike the towers:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm still waiting for a response to this post, that presents an explanation for the "reflection on the van(?)":
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I and others have asked, several times, for the source imagery used to make this composite:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No response to a summary:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which is fake, and which is real:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

An examination of the eject artifact seems to indicate a smoke plume, not a nose section. We still have no response here as well:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I believe those represent some of the major questions presented in the first five pages of this thread that are as yet unanswered by anyone representing the primary source of "TV Fakery" and "No Planes" theories, 911researchers.com. I think if we can receive the benefit of answers to these logical questions, we'll all be much better off in understanding the basis upon which these theories have been birthed.

In the interest of a fraternal endeavor to discover the truth, I urge you to help us by answering these questions.