New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Its another CT, conspiracy theory, that the lost flight would be known
to the FAA within 5 minuets of failure to arrive on time.

Also radar and a rescue beeper should have been available immediately.

In any case, I just see inaction as to a fault a common thread in some
of the topical conspiracies.

I feel its valid and mentionable, any way thanks for noticing my post,
hope I didn't disrupt the FAKERY tread too much.

If there was nothing to cover, why the claims of FAKERY or any of the
other 9/11 counter governmental inaction claims.

Did you know that JFK Jr.'s pilot seat is missing. I just happened to be
watching the news of that day or two on cable and was quite
amazed at the JFK Jr. video recently, makes you wonder.

Ok a couple things here before I post the animation. First off, obviously it isn't to scale, and because of the 100k upload limit I had to simplify the animation to the most basic shapes and motions I could, so don't expect skywalker ranch kind of stuff here. I had a really nice animation complete with other buildings and a skyline, but it ended up being about 20 meg in size so I simplified it, probably to a fault, but the concept is the same.
The process is called a boolean add, and shows one possible explination of the nose of the aircraft exiting the other side while retaining exactly the same shape and size as when it entered. Obviously this is physically impossible given the materials involved, even a bullet fired from a gun into something as filmsy as a milk jug full of water will alter the shape of the projectile.




I clearly remember the fade to black during the live coverage of the second impact, at the moment I thought that perhaps that the impact had caused some kind of disruption of the live feed, but now in retrospect, the fade to black could very well have been an attempt to keep you from noticing the exiting nose of the CGI aircraft, which in my opinion could have been 'painted' over the real impacting projectile. If so, it's possible in the rush to get this feed up to the networks, they missed the last keyframe or two of the cgi aircraft and so we get to see the nose of the plane exit right through the building in the same shape and size. It's the only plausible explination I can think of beyond super aluminum, if indeed that is the nose of the plane exiting.

Edit:
Also it's important to remember that there is no such thing as true Live network television, Remeber Frank Zappa's live "F you", or The Door's "Girl, we couldn't get much higher?" They don't broadcast anything that is truly live anymore, there is always a delay to allow producers and the like to edit out unexpected things like that. Plenty of time to key up a boolean add animation and run it as live feed.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by twitchy]

Originally posted by twitchy

I clearly remember the fade to black during the live coverage of the second impact, at the moment I thought that perhaps that the impact had caused some kind of disruption of the live feed, but now in retrospect, the fade to black could very well have been an attempt to keep you from noticing the exiting nose of the CGI aircraft,

Second Plane - where's the "fade to black" here? [20Mb .mpg video @ half speed]

Nose or whatever, it would seem that the supposed CGI-ers missed this one ... as it's shown time after time after time in the original ABC footage. No glitches, no fade to black, and the original video file is of rather high quality.

This excerpt was taken from: 9-11 - 1609-1651 ABC7 Washington.mpg [1GB]

 

I would have uploaded it to YouTube or Google Video, but their compression reduces the quality too much.

 

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
ABC footage.

Exactly, footage. Network Footage at that.

Edit:
If you are to examine this particular theory with any real objectivity, then we must discount the network footage, it's the root of theory. You can't debunk a tv fakery with footage from your tv.

Edit II:
Sorry, I'm not much of an animator But for those of you in the "they couldn't fake it" school of thought earlier in the thread, I did this simplified one and rendered it in roughly less than a minute with a decade old software on the spot, and I'm not an editor, I'm an actor with some editing experience. As to digital noise, ask George Lucas if it's possible to pan a shot of a moving object in CGI without noise and layovers from source frames.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by twitchy]

My point being ... Many of the supporters of these "theories" Do seem to be placing an inordinate amount of credence on the fade to black "glitch", claiming that it's a sign of intent to mask or remove something from view. Also, they use the same network footage to promote that which you Now claim can't be used to denounce said theories. (?) How's that work?

 

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

My point being ... Many of the supporters of these "theories" Do seem to be placing an inordinate amount of credence on the fade to black "glitch", claiming that it's a sign of intent to mask or remove something from view. Also, they use the same network footage to promote that which you Now claim can't be used to denounce said theories. (?) How's that work?

Why put glitch in quotes like that? Do you know the fade to black was a glitch for sure?
The timing is, well, cooincidental to say the least, and how many of these 'glitches' do we generally see on a 'live' network broadcast?
What would the mathematical odds be of that 'glitch' appearing at any given point and time. Remember to add in the odds of it occuring at a point where it would 'need' to, in examination of this theory.
As far as I know in my limited experience with editing, a true "Fade To Black" which this indeed appears to me to be, is a command line, not a glitch. In the interests of considering this theory objectively, I'm going to have to see some solid evidence of it being a glitch before I would allow you to call it a glitch unchalleneged.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by twitchy]

Alot of you old timers here on ATS know me well enough to know that I like to dig into something pretty heavy normally, but I haven't had the time to really look into this angle yet so before I get dragged into this thread as I probably inevitably will, I just want to make sure that you understand I'm not a proponent of this theory, nor am I out to debunk it. It simply caught my attention because I know a little about film and video production, it's not as outlandish of a theory as some others that have been discussed, members are getting banned over the arguements it has caused, and I remembered the Fade on that second impact because I had said to my wife when it happened that perhaps the impact had disrupted their feed somehow.
The thread started off with some good looking into, I don't know how it got so angry sounding but let's take a look at what they said, and let's look at it like we would anything here, objectively, and hopefully thoroughly.

I call it a "glitch" because that's exactly how I see it. I have over 50Gb of rather high quality video from the coverage of that day's events. There are many "glitches" (if you will) which seem mostly due to the chaotic and hectic nature of the situation. "And now to ... oh sorry, we've lost their signal" ... "Now back to ... It seems we've lost their feed" ... etc.

There were many reports of telephone and cell phone outages, to include other means of broadcast being affected as a result of overloaded systems and such. Personally, I see no reason to view these rather benign "glitches" as anything more than that. Glitches. If anyone chooses to attribute them to some nefarious intent designed to mislead or "cover up", have at it. Though, that's one bandwagon I will have to pass on.

 

[edit: affected as opposed to effected]

[edit on 15-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by talisman
piacenza and bsregistration

Using your LOGIC-(not mine)

How do you know 9/11 happened?

It never even occurred to me, talisman! Brilliant! Isn't feasible that 911 was not even a real event?

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Glitches 

Ok now I'm just going to have to get nasty...
You say tomato, i say Tamato..
You say glitches, I say prove it.

Originally posted by twitchy
You say tomato, i say Tamato..
You say glitches, I say prove it.

I had a feeling you would respond with something along those lines.

Ya cain't pruve a negateeve, Twitches Twitchy.

*teasing*

From my perspective, it seems that most of these more "questionable" theories seem to be a result of analyzing highly compressed, poor quality videos, and then taking the most miniscule of deviations, in artifacts that have been introduced by said compression, and using them as "proof" to build upon or further suppport the claims.

A good example of this would be the supposed laser that "traces" across the face of the second tower prior to the plane's impact. When, in fact, if you view a higher quality version of the same video, it becomes quite clear that it's nothing more than debris or material falling from the North Tower. However, there are still those who will stand in defiance that it's actually a laser guiding the plane to it's destination/point of impact. Oddly enough, the debris or material continues to fall past the tower even after the impact of the plane. A laser? Hardly.

 

[edit: speeling]

[edit on 15-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Yes. The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, multiples ... at that.

Yet, what happened, happened. Could you possibly expound upon exactly Why and How you've come to said conclusions? I'm sure it would assist others in understanding your position, overall.

"gullible people", OR ... more simply, curious inquisitors?



Thanks in advance ....

Hey, have you seen the power of the structure?



A ridiculous Boeing of 150 tons would have only bent a little some powerful beams and would have shriveled against those powerful buildings of 500,000 tons.

Have you observed the height of the beams in comparison with persons?

A thousand Boeing were needed to destroy those two skyscrapers.

But the gullible people that live in our strange world believe also the NASA buffoons can hit comets in the deep universe.

No plane hit those powerful buildings and only few unlucky persons died.

But now some poor engineers of a greatest university have invented a mathematic model that explains how powerful steel can turn into camel crap, and gullible people believe them.

Oh, poor strange world.

Originally posted by bigbrain
A ridiculous Boeing of 150 tons would have only bent a little some powerful beams and would have shriveled against those powerful buildings of 500,000 tons.

Silly bigbrain ... how do you compare the destructive capabilities of a 150+ ton aircraft, flying at or near top speed, into Only a Small portion [relatively], to the sum total mass of said building?

A thousand Boeing were needed to destroy those two skyscrapers.

M'kay.

No plane hit those powerful buildings and only few unlucky persons died.

Actually, I think you're wrong on both counts.
Two planes struck those buildings, and Many unlucky persons died.

Oh, poor strange world.

Not to mention some of her inhabitants.

 

Hey bigbrain, please explain how a B-25, which was about 1/3 the size of a 767 could go COMPLETELY through the Empire State Building, but yet a 767 moving at well over TWICE the speed of it is going to just bounce off the WTC. I'm curious how that's supposed to work.

Edit:
Also it's important to remember that there is no such thing as true Live network television, Remeber Frank Zappa's live "F you", or The Door's "Girl, we couldn't get much higher?" They don't broadcast anything that is truly live anymore, there is always a delay to allow producers and the like to edit out unexpected things like that. Plenty of time to key up a boolean add animation and run it as live feed.

excellent point.

lets just say ol jim were alive today. were hip to his tricks and i am sure that the editors/producers on live tv would have the boolean add animation ready to go.

why would we have one of an airplane hitting a skyscraper, que'd no less?

i still maintian researching the videos is the best thing we have going. this is my opinion, and no expert one at that, but the video in the OP certainly appears to be faked. although there is 'ejection' from the 'official' videos, it appears to be 'spur of the moment' on this video. finding another source of the clip in question broadcast 'live' (as live as it gets in this day and age) is essential.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Hey bigbrain, please explain how a B-25, which was about 1/3 the size of a 767 could go COMPLETELY through the Empire State Building, but yet a 767 moving at well over TWICE the speed of it is going to just bounce off the WTC. I'm curious how that's supposed to work.

Hey, have you seen how many steel beams there are in the buildings?





NO COMMENT

So what you're saying is that steel is stronger than solid concrete reinforced with steel? So why don't they build EVERYTHING out of steel then if that's true? I mean if it's strong enough that a loaded 767 is going to bounce off it, why are they bothering to build ANYTHING with concrete?

Originally posted by bigbrain
A ridiculous Boeing of 150 tons would have only bent a little some powerful beams and would have shriveled against those powerful buildings of 500,000 tons.

Have you observed the height of the beams in comparison with persons?

A thousand Boeing were needed to destroy those two skyscrapers.

This "mass" argument that leads many to believe the buildings should have withstood the impact is flawed at best, deceptive at worst.

You "assume" the entire mass of the building is resisting the entire mass of the approaching plane, with is completely wrong.

In a mostly hollow structure such as this, only the mass of the material in the area being struck matters -- in this case, a paltry few hundred square feet. Hence, the mass of the building zone being struck is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than the mass and kinetic energy of the approaching plane.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
In a mostly hollow structure such as this, only the mass of the material in the area being struck matters -- in this case, a paltry few hundred square feet. Hence, the mass of the building zone being struck is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than the mass and kinetic energy of the approaching plane.

Well gee, I wonder what load bearing means? I guess the building above the two points of impact were by your logic weightless, or perhaps unsupported? Talk about 'deceptive'.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So what you're saying is that steel is stronger than solid concrete reinforced with steel? So why don't they build EVERYTHING out of steel then if that's true? I mean if it's strong enough that a loaded 767 is going to bounce off it, why are they bothering to build ANYTHING with concrete?

Who told you Twin Towers had no reinforced concrete?