Please allow 911 truth .....PLEASE!!!!!

reply to post by videoworldwide

I suppose it takes some time to consult your disinfo training manual, contact your higher ups, get new permissions to post new lies, then you have to construct a whole new fake reality, counter each video with confusion, find ways to distort true facts, make it appear I said things I didn't, twist simple logic into confused gibberish....

Statements like this are the antithesis of a debate. You have a history with some members here, I understand that. You posted video to support your theory, and called it "truth". How would someone counter confusing video? With either a debunking video, or with countering evidence and links. The latter takes time.

My opinion -- attempting to characterize your opposition as disinfo agent, liars, distortionists......... I don't think it helps your case a bit.

The first thing I'd want to do in your shoes would be to provide evidence that holograph technology of this magnitude is/was possible. I was unable to find any -- granted, I just spent an hour or so looking for it.

Did that sound terribly naive? Just trying to be fair.

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by videoworldwide

 

I suppose it takes some time to consult your disinfo training manual, contact your higher ups, get new permissions to post new lies, then you have to construct a whole new fake reality, counter each video with confusion, find ways to distort true facts, make it appear I said things I didn't, twist simple logic into confused gibberish....

Statements like this are the antithesis of a debate. You have a history with some members here, I understand that. You posted video to support your theory, and called it "truth". How would someone counter confusing video? With either a debunking video, or with countering evidence and links. The latter takes time.

My opinion -- attempting to characterize your opposition as disinfo agent, liars, distortionists......... I don't think it helps your case a bit.

The first thing I'd want to do in your shoes would be to provide evidence that holograph technology of this magnitude is/was possible. I was unable to find any -- granted, I just spent an hour or so looking for it.

Did that sound terribly naive?

Just trying to be fair.

I'm not a believer in Holograms, necessarily. It may have been a hologram that people saw, maybe not, maybe it was a missile. I'm convinced there were no planes, but i'm not convinced it was a hologram.

That is a postulated theory among some people, and I have a post that supports it, to a degree, to see what people think, and say., but other than that. holograms, are not part of my unified 911 field theory.


Btw, Argentus, I just saw your posted response. I will look it over, read it through, and post a reply shortly.

If I call a spade a spade, it's because it's not a heart, a club or a diamond, so it's the just pointing out the obvious. What do you call disinfo. agents? Do you have a better name for a dog, than a dog, or would you prefer I call it a canine.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

Originally posted by videoworldwide
September Clues / (First Half) (41:45)
September Clues / (Second Half) (49:59)

I don't need to debunk these as I already have before, and they've also been debunked at the following links.

September Clues - Busted!:
video.google.com...

Debunking September Clues - A point-by-point analysis:
truthaction.org...

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Amateur (Part 1)

The above deals with different camera angles, plain and simple. If the buildings are in different locations because cameras are in different locations, that's proof of different camera angles, not fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Amateur (Part 2)

One of ATS's prominent members, mister.old.school, spent $175 of his own money to obtain a high-quality digital copy of the Naudet video and completely destroyed (Part 2) with facts. You can read about that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a damn shame when members of this forum have to shell out their own money to debunk the no-plane "theory". The no-plane cult members should be shelling out their own money to obtain these videos and have them professionally analyzed for fakery. But they don't and they won't because once their "theories" get debunked, their whole world comes crashing down.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Amateur (Part 3)

Question 1:
Do aluminum wings penetrate steel-framed buildings in your world?

The wings didn't penetrate the steel columns. The wings, like the rest of the plane, broke the connectors connecting the columns together. None of the outer columns failed. Only the connectors connecting them together failed.


Question 2:
How was this extraordinary camera angle achieved?

The camera is obviously near the ground to be able to capture the burning WTC and the person all in the same shot.


Question 3
Makes mention of the radio being used. It doesn't matter what kind of radio it is. He's outside watching the WTC and listening to the news on the radio.


The video then claims falsly that the tower impact reflected on the glass of the car is added in. Go into any major city with tall skyscrapers, park about a block away, get down low in the back of the vehicle and look at the reflections of the buildings in the window. WOW what a concept.

The towers soared over a quarter mile into the sky. It's disinformation to claim that the image was added onto a windshield with no proof other than the authors opinion. Especially when anybody can recreate the same thing by going to a big city with tall buildings, getting down low and looking at the reflections in the glass of their own cars.

It's also disinformation when the video claims "the images are undisputably doctored", again with zero proof and only the opinion of the author. A reflection in a car windshield is not proof.

More disinfo follows when the video says "Every single airplane shot was forged". That means every mainstream media, independent journalist, AND private citizens' home videos are all fake. Ask a no-planer how private citizens faked their own home videos. You'll get a kick out of their answer.

The video goes on to look at poor-quality video that has been heavily compressed to put on the internet and then claims fakery due to the compression and other anomalies associated with such. It's disinformation to claim fakery without any proof other than the author's opinion. Compression and other anomalies associated with lowering the quality of video to be put on the internet is not proof of fakery. Not to mention the first video appears to be from a VHS recorder. Anyone who has ever recorded anything onto VHS tapes knows how many artifacts and anomalies happen there.

Then at the end of Part 3, we are shown a home video and asked what the woman is so distressed about. She did see a jetliner slam into a building with her own eyes. The man even says "What's this other jet doing?. In otherwords, he sees the jet and acknowledges it was a jet, destroying any NPT "theories". People saw the jet and acknowledged the jet with their own eyes. Therefore it wasn't CGI'd into a live tv stream.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Taboo (Part 1)

The video claims that only people watching a screen mention a plane. That's false because just above in 9/11 Amateur Part 3 at the very end we see a home video where the guy says "What's this other jet doing" and he wasn't watching tv. He was filming it with his home video camera. He and his wife both saw the plane with their own eyes.

911 Taboo cherry-pics witnesses and then asks why they didn't see the plane. We have no idea where those witnesses were or why they can't see it. But this is not proof of fakery.

The rest of the video just shows different camera angles, which is also not proof of fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Taboo (Part 2)

This again claims not a single person saw the plane approaching, but that's false:

In this first video that happens to be a home video, the male in this video says "What's this other jet doing? What's this other jet doing?" as he clearly sees the second plane right before it hits the south tower **WARNING - extreme language**:




In this next video from CNN, many people are standing together in an area as the plane passes over them. Some of them start to scream as the plane flies by and then scream louder as the plane impacts the tower. Again, people clearly see the plane and react to it before it hits the tower:



People clearly see and hear the plane and react to it before it hits the tower.

The rest of Part 2 deals with the author's opinions as to what he thinks should've happened to the plane when it hit the building.

The outer columns and the floor trusses were assembled in sections:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e157541a8ac2.jpg[/atsimg]

Had the outer columns been continuous from top to bottom, we might have seen the plane crumple up against the columns. But the columns were connected in sections by welds and bolts. The welds and bolts are what failed on the outer columns. The columns themselves did not fail.

Take a fishing pole as an example. Many fishing poles can reel in some pretty heavy fish without breaking. Now take that same fishing pole, break it up into several parts. Then glue and tape those parts back together. Do you think that fishing pole will have anywhere near the strength as it did before it was in pieces? Not even close.

The author's opinions as to what he thinks should have happened is not proof of fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Taboo (Part 3)

The main aspect of this video is that planes don't penetrate steel buildings. However, we saw a plane penetrate a steel building in 1945 when a B-25 Bomber impacted the Empire State building:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2174b3241f94.jpg[/atsimg]

And a B-25 is much smaller and slower than a 767. Not to mention, the fires from the fuel burned for almost 2 hours. Longer than the fires burned in either WTC tower.

The author's lack of understanding of physics is not proof of fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Taboo (Part 4)

Part 4 again continues the physics aspect of it and then asks:

Have you ever noticed that the 175 strike videos are nearly all amateur shots? Shaky, bad focus, cheap equipment, not looking in the right spot?

If everybody has different cameras and most "amateur" people can't afford professional expensive cameras. If all the videos were professionally done, not shaky and in perfect focus, wouldn't that be more proof of fakery or less?

As far as "not looking in the right spot", nobody was expecting a second plane to slam into the second tower, therefore nobody was looking for it.

Then Part 4 complains that none of the networks zoomed in on the second plane. Well, since they weren't expecting the second plane, they wouldn't be ready to zoom in at that exact moment. This fact alone absolves the networks from any wrongdoing.

Part 4 then says "you're about to see every second of live video that is known to exist after the second strike". We're shown 5 shots out of the 40+ that actually exist. I wonder why that is?

Originally posted by videoworldwide
John Lear

John firstly falsely states several times in this video that the 767 can't fly at 500mph at 1000-feet.

When I first learned of John's statement, I was absolutely floored. I cannot believe such a seasoned pilot would would say such things. Of course a jetliner cannot go 500mph at 1000-feet. The jet engines are not powerful enough at sea level to accelerate the plane to that velocity. But the planes were not traveling at 1000-feet for more than a 2 or 3 seconds. A 767 can be at 500mph at 1000-feet until the speed quickly bleeds off. This can be proven in any flight simulator.

The second plane came down from a higher altitude. When a plane is descending, it doesn't need it's engines to accelerate. It has gravity to accelerate it. The plane easily could have coasted at 500mph from it's higher altitude right into the tower as it wasn't near sea level long enough for much of the speed to bleed off.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7357be7bdab.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42d92959bf9d.gif[/atsimg]


John then continues about holograms, but so far, there hasn't been any evidence of us having the technology to produce holograms in direct sunlight with sound.


Continued in the next post...

Continued....

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Jennifer Oberstein

She said she was down in the subway coming up when she heard a boom. Being down in the subway on top of all of the other tall buildings would have blocked the sound of the aircraft. Not to mention all of the city noise down at street level.

No evidence of fakery here.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Another 9/11 Witness - No Plane

There's no telling where this witness was when the second plane hit the tower. He could've been on the total opposite side of the tower and all he would have see was an explosion.

Again, no proof of fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
9/11 Actor Gary Welz is Fake Eyewitness

The first video is highly edited and pieced together while telling you what to think. There's no actual proof in this video that he's fake and therefore that also means there's no proof that the planes were fake.

The second Gary Welz video is hilarious (and annoying). Just because someone has a stutter or goes "uh uh" doesn't mean they're the same person. There are millions of people in the world who do that and they're not all the same person. This is ridiculous conjecture at best.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
What If The 911 Plane Witnesses Were Really Only Actors? Part 1

More of the repetitive "uh uh" bs. No proof of fakery here.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
What If The 911 Plane Witnesses Were Really Only Actors? Part 2

Nothing worth value in this video. Just more attacking of peoples' credibility by the no-plane disinfo cult and not enough researching the actual videos for fakery. Attacking witnesses credibility will not prove video fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911stealth Four Witnesses of Explosions No "Planes" Inside WTC1 & WTC2

First witness was next near the north tower which means she was likely on the opposite side of the south tower where where the plane impacted. She never says there was no plane.

Second witness was inside one of the towers and therefore not even in a position to see a plane.

Third witness was inside a tower and again was not in a position to see the plane.

Fourth witness was also inside a tower and again not in any position to see a plane.

No proof of fakery here. What this equates to is deliberate deception on the no-planer's part. They claim these witnesses saw no plane and then therefore there couldn't be plane, however most of these witnesses were inside of buildings and not in a position to even see a plane. Deliberate deception can also equal disinformation.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
9/11 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You

Nothing of significance or even remotely proving fakery in this video.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Fetzer

Both give their opinions, but never show any actual proof. Opinions do not prove video fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 No Plane TV Video Fakery? Killtown Shows How They Did It

This video focuses on the planes being CGI and only seen on tv. I've already proven that false above by showing videos where people saw the planes with their own eyes before they hit the towers. That totally nullifies this video and automatically debunks it.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Killtowns FIREBALL

Killtown obviously has no clue how camera angles work or camera perceptions. Of course when you slow a video down, the fireball will slow down and/or virtually stop. More blatant deception on Killtown's part.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
How NOT to Fake Plane Crash Videos - TinaCart1

This video tried to again attack the credibility of the witnesses and then starts talking about the colors. No two cameras are alike when it comes to colors and contrast. That even goes for tv's as well. When you walk into an electronics store and see all the tv's on the wall, they're all different colors and contrasts. None of the colors were right in this video, obviously because of it being a terrible camera and/or it's old. No proof of fakery here.

Another false claim in this video is that you can hear the sound of the impact. The camera is indoors and behind glass. You won't hear the sound of the impact at all that far away and indoors. This is what the no-plane disinfo artists do. They deliberately make up false information and place it into their videos and peddle it as truth.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
9/11 TV Fakery: Smoke & Mirrors

This video obviously has some editing and fakery going on. However, I believe it was from a single person purposely making a hoax. At 7:01 in the following video, you can see the original and no such anomalies are present:





That means that someone faked the "Smoke and Mirrors" video, and then peddles it as proof of fakery. Do you still need any more evidence that the no-planer cult are disinfo artists, purposely making fake videos and/or peddling purposely false information in the attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement?

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Theory of Ghostplane

As I've already shown, people see and react to the plane before it reaches the tower, indicating they're seeing a real plane with their own eyes while they're standing outside. Not watching a CGI'd plane on tv. Also note that the video clip in "Theory of Ghostplane" is one of the very videos I posted where people scream when seeing the plane before it hits the tower. In essence, this video debunks itself.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
What's in Naudet 1?

The video is fudged. Youtube is having problems with that video yesterday and today.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
9/11 Live Airplane Composite Theory

The CGI theory has already been debunked, so I won't go into that about this video. This video then goes into the nose-out aspect which has already been debunked here:

Originally posted by videoworldwide
WTC-2 Missile Strike on 9/11

Someone saying they heard, for a brief second, what they thought sounded like a missile (or he says jet engine), is not proof of fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
WTC-2 Missile Strike on 9/11

These people are at least 2-3 miles away from the WTC with the camera zoomed all the way out. There's no possible way to tell what hit the WTC from this far away. There is only guessing and speculation as they didn't see what directly hit the WTC. Again, not proof of fakery.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
19 Rector Street

We're shown a video and told the buildings were fake in the 9/11 footage. The author never shows us the fakery. Saying it doesn't make it so. No proof of fakery here.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Fake 19 Rector Street

The author doesn't even point out which building(s) are supposed to be missing. There are also trees obstructing the view of many buildings in the CNN video. No proof of fakery here.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
New York Battery Park Statue of Liberty Tour (Proof 19 Rector Street is STILL THERE)

No proof of fakery here either as well as nothing is being pointed out.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Watch the rendering of the bridge in this CGI It was done so poorly, the bridge floats across the bay.

The bridge is supposed to be moving in this video. What I see is a helicopter moving and while it moves, everything else in the screen moves also. No proof of fakery here.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
9/11 TV Fakery: A Bridge Too Near (Has anybody seen the BRIDGE?)

It's funny. The people that make these videos have no clue of camera angles. They expect that once a camera location changes, the buildings are all supposed to stay the same! When you change camera locations and/or heights, everything changes also. Too hilarious. No evidence of fakery here.

The last video can be explained by the above.


There you have it. No tangible, hard, verifiable evidence of fakery is present. And more than one occasion where the no-plane disinfo artists either manipulate or use manipulated footage and then peddle it as truth. Until they get some real evidence, all NPT will ever be is a fairy tale myth and disinformation with zero tangible proof.




[edit on 8-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by videoworldwide
It may have been a hologram that people saw, maybe not, maybe it was a missile.

We know it wasn't CGI because there are plenty of videos of people reacting to the plane before it hits the tower. That means they're seeing it with their own eyes.

Nobody has shown that we even remotely have the technology to produce holograms in direct sunlight with sound.

As far as a missile, missiles aren't as large as, or fly as slow as, a large jetliner.

What does that leave you with? Planes! Wow, what a concept!

Originally posted by videoworldwide
I'm convinced there were no planes

Thankfully, there's very few of you on this planet that actually believe this.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
holograms, are not part of my unified 911 field theory.

Holograms are not part of your "theory"? You made a post about "holograms" and suggesting just that!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So now you are being untruthful or you are just changing your story after others and I debunked your hologram "theories" in that thread. Which is it?

Originally posted by videoworldwide
If I call a spade a spade, it's because it's not a heart, a club or a diamond, so it's the just pointing out the obvious. What do you call disinfo. agents?

You don't understand camera angles and you also don't understand the definition of a disinfo agent. Someone who knowingly publishes false information is a disinfo agent. Kinda like how I've shown how the no-planers purposely deceive and publish knowingly false information.

Not only have I never published false information, everything I claim is backed up with evidence in the form of links, videos, etc., you do not. Therefore, by definition, I cannot be classified as a disinfo anything. Nice try though.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I`m not posting this to join in a NPT type argument, far from it, but this picture does not speak the real truth imho, in it`s present status it looks very weak, what it fails to show is... There will be another 2 storeys added to those steels that are being placed, the arrows I put in show where the floor trusses will sit..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c569efaf78a.jpg[/atsimg]

So theoretically this is what the planes will encounter (the `H` part of a beam is it`s strongest point).
...............
H-H-H-H-H
...............
H-H-H-H-H
...............
H-H-H-H-H

The full stops depict 4 inches of concrete, for the plane to have sunk into the building as much as it did, it is not the exterior beams alone it would have to slice through, but all those floor trusses tightly secured to the inner core as well, at their strongest points, no way on earth an aluminium plane is going to do this imho, the only way remotely possible is an impact parallel to the floor and the plane to be no taller than twelve feet (floor to ceiling distance iirc).

Originally posted by Seventh
it is not the exterior beams alone it would have to slice through, but all those floor trusses tightly secured to the inner core as well

I wouldn't say "tightly" secured. The floor trusses were bolted to seats that were welded onto the core columns and outer colums.

Originally posted by Seventh
at their strongest points, no way on earth an aluminium plane is going to do this imho

I'm glad this is just your opinion. And it's one of the main reasons why the no-planers can't grasp how planes entered these buildings with no resistance.

The floor trusses were made out of lightweight steel bar trusses with a thin metal deck for the 4" of lightweight concrete to be layed upon:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1be8ffb1d7a3.jpg[/atsimg]


The floor trusses were also assembled in sections around a single floor of the towers, just as the outer columns were assembled in sections.

We're talking about a 300,000 pound object going circa 500mph into these perimeter columns and lightweight floor trusses. The concrete is totally irrelevant. Four inches of a light aggregate is nothing compared to a 300,000 pound jetliner traveling at 500mph. You could take a 9-pound sledgehammer and break four inches of lightweight aggregate, let alone a 300,000 pound jetliner. And those light floor trusses would easily crumple away against a 300,000 pound jetliner traveling at 500mph.

So remember, the columns and floor trusses were all connected together by welds and bolts. The welds and bolts are no match for a 300,000 pound jetliner traveling at 500mph.

I don't know how you can't comprehend that a 300,000 pound jetliner traveling at 500mph isn't going to break bolts and welds. But some people comprehend physics differently than others I guess.

reply to post by eldard


ha! Interesting. I like that!

Star!

Star!

Let's Isolate One video and explain it.

I'll explain my interpretation, then the disinfo agents can do their best to confuse people.

In the following video, watch the background move across the screen, while the angle of the supposedly "filming helicopter" is stationary in relation to the building perspective. One would expect the background to stay relatively still, but it doesn't. It floats across the screen.

I have personally played with animation before, and i'm not sure how many have experience in this field, but if you download a basic program and play with it, you'll go through certain preliminaries for creating an animation of CGI.

The process is called "rendering", and it occurs in several ways. Each animation is built upon "layers", and each layer can be operated independently. For instance, I may have clouds, and I may have trees, and I may have rolling hills. The clouds, the trees, and the hills in the background will each be on a different layer, so that I can work with something simply called the "timeline".

I want to make the clouds to float by at a certain speed, but I want to pan backwards from the foreground toward the background and I want the trees to sway back and forth at the same time. This can only be accomplished by placing each one on a seperate layer and then "rendering". The rendering is the speed at which you want the object to move across the screen.

Now, please forgive me if I make a small error in my language since I am not pro, only amateur in animation skills. I am learning it though.

So, basically, if I want something to occur in a 3 second span, I can stretch the clouds from one location to the other and choose the amount of frames that pass in the timeline, and this would be a simple rendering of the clouds in a given sequence.

In the video below, which is animation or CGI, Computer Generated Image, the World Trade Center is being viewed from a helicopter, that is practically stationary, since the building angle barely changes at all, yet the background with the WHOLE LAND MASS moves from several inches on the left of the screen, all the way to a point behind the towers, with no panning or angle change from the filming perspective.

This is what is called in animation, a "bad rendering job". It is SO DAMN OBVIOUS, that anyone who tries to debunk it, IS AN AGENT OR HAS AN AGENDA!!!!! (PERIOD!!!) -

But, hey, that is only my opinion, so go right ahead, and explain this one to me and the world. It's IMPOSSIBLE!



And please don't tell me they put roller skates on the twin towers!!!

[edit on 9-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Seventh
it is not the exterior beams alone it would have to slice through, but all those floor trusses tightly secured to the inner core as well

I wouldn't say "tightly" secured. The floor trusses were bolted to seats that were welded onto the core columns and outer colums.

Originally posted by Seventh
at their strongest points, no way on earth an aluminium plane is going to do this imho

I'm glad this is just your opinion. And it's one of the main reasons why the no-planers can't grasp how planes entered these buildings with no resistance.

The floor trusses were made out of lightweight steel bar trusses with a thin metal deck for the 4" of lightweight concrete to be layed upon:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1be8ffb1d7a3.jpg[/atsimg]


The floor trusses were also assembled in sections around a single floor of the towers, just as the outer columns were assembled in sections.

We're talking about a 300,000 pound object going circa 500mph into these perimeter columns and lightweight floor trusses. The concrete is totally irrelevant. Four inches of a light aggregate is nothing compared to a 300,000 pound jetliner traveling at 500mph. You could take a 9-pound sledgehammer and break four inches of lightweight aggregate, let alone a 300,000 pound jetliner. And those light floor trusses would easily crumple away against a 300,000 pound jetliner traveling at 500mph.

So remember, the columns and floor trusses were all connected together by welds and bolts. The welds and bolts are no match for a 300,000 pound jetliner traveling at 500mph.

I don't know how you can't comprehend that a 300,000 pound jetliner traveling at 500mph isn't going to break bolts and welds. But some people comprehend physics differently than others I guess.

I find it highly suspicious that you go through so much trouble to disprove something, with information that proves nothing!

I do a lot of ariel filming. If you want I can duplicate this "moving bridge" effect for you. NO PROBLEM.

One of my films:




This is a video I made Debunking: 911 Amature Part 3



Simon Shack is a joke!

[edit on 9-8-2009 by waypastvne]

reply to post by waypastvne


Another disinfo clown!

I swear I did not put on my disinfo clown magnet belt this morning, so what gives?

Your Plane aerial film was STUPID and BORING and proved NOTHING but the fact that you took footage from a hangglider. BFD

Next, your Simon Shack response video was equally unimpressive as I cannot understand why it is that every debunker that makes an anti-september clues type video has to create a film that I cannot understand or watch and understand what is being conveyed.
It makes no sense, does not address anything Simon deals with and is another red-herring calling itself a debunker video.

I call it a tremendous WASTE OF TIME!

At least make a film someone can watch, and understand what is being shown. The point is not to prove any point, but to confuse and make it appear that something has been debunked, when in fact, the issues have never been addressed at all. ~~

BTW, even your incredibly stupid hangglider video, does the same thing. It fails to address anything at all. Just distraction, for the people who don't bother to watch, to think to themselves, oh, I guess he was debunked. That is how you guys operate. Make a film, say it's a debunker film, nobody watches, reads the post header and figures, o.k., another conspiracy I can put to rest. but nothing was communicated.

Go figure

[edit on 9-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

So you don't want me to duplicate the "moving bridge" effect for you?

Originally posted by waypastvne
So you don't want me to duplicate the "moving bridge" effect for you?

Oh, excuse me, I thought you already did.
Please forgive me.

Go right ahead.
I really can't wait. I'm making popcorn right now. Gettin comfy.....

How can you possibly top that hangglider video?


[edit on 9-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

reply to post by videoworldwide


I understand your point, I think, VideoWW, and now I'll explain it to you. In the youtube you posted here that -- for you -- is proof of CGI, what you need to remember is that in all cases, the point-of-view (POV) is actually much farther away from the WTC than it appears. You can tell this, because they will frequently pan back (unzoom). After the first strike, the news choppers and other craft were restricted from the immediate area. I have this stored somewhere in my myriad of 911 stuff, and will look for it later.

In ALL cases in that video, where you say they are "nearly stationary", that is far from the case. The helicopter is quite a ways away, and is basically moving in an arc around the Twin Towers. It has to be travelling fairly fast to make that circuit, much as a point on the outside of a tire must travel more rapidly than the hub.

Okay. So they use extreme zoom, and under such conditions, there is a false sense of perspective, and the appearance of background "moving" faster than it should.

Take note in your youtubes -- the "moving bridges", this last one you posted........ Let's take the last one...

Look at 0:06 - 08, 0:44 - 0:48, 1:03 - 1:20, 2:30 - 2:38, 3:08, 3:31...... in all of those cases, when the POV is panned back, the perspective is correct. As they zoom in, it gives an false perspective, and this is true of most or all videos that show a POV in motion using extreme telephoto.

This video is also intentionally misleading in my opinion, as it loops the same clips over and over, neatly truncating the video whenever it is in danger of showing a view that doesn't meet the hypothesis of the author of the youtube. AT 2:16, the film is actually sped up by a factor of at least five, (which you can tell by the apparent speed of the smoke) in order to make the POV more dramatic.

This is my opinion, and I'm happy to state it as such.

You say:

This is what is called in animation, a "bad rendering job". It is SO DAMN OBVIOUS, that anyone who tries to debunk it, IS AN AGENT OR HAS AN AGENDA!!!!! (PERIOD!!!) -

But, hey, that is only my opinion, so go right ahead, and explain this one to me and the world. It's IMPOSSIBLE!

Yes, I have an agenda. I want to find out what really happened, and examine all the information available. The truth is my agenda. I don't have any high hopes that through my own efforts I will discover anything missed by those more dilligent in the nearly 8 years since 9/11.

It's very disappointing to me to read your attempt to label anyone who disagrees as either "stupid" or an "agent". Again, that is the antithesis of debate. It's not IMPOSSIBLE to explain the reason for the view -- to the contrary, it's quite easy. That is my opinion.

edit for grammar/clarification


[edit on 9/8/09 by argentus]

reply to post by videoworldwide


When focusing on an object close to the camera and the camera is moving slowly around that object, the foreground will move slow and the background will move by faster. Take a video recorder to a large mall parking lot and drive in a slow circle around a light pole while video taping. The pole will turn slowly while objects in the far background will move by quickly.

When focusing on an object in the far background and the camera is moving, all of the objects in the foreground will move by fast while the background moves slow or stationary.

This is all photography 101 and as soon as the no-planers learn these simple concepts, the sooner we can get rid of the baseless nonesense of bridges and buildings that walk around the screen.

reply to post by videoworldwide


Your childish attacks on me and others further prove that no-planers can't have civil, adult conversations.

You specifically made this thread whining and crying because you want NPT to be accepted everywhere, and then you go off on people when they try to debate or refute your evidence. If your evidence were so strong and provable, you would counter other peoples' arguments, not attack them like a little child.

And then you wonder why NPT isn't accepted (and never will be) in the 9/11 truth movement. Because of no-planers like you who can't act like a civil adult and have an adult conversation. You won't gain any converts this way. I would suggest changing your strategy as I have a feeling that if you continue, your time here will be short-lived.

reply to post by argentus


Argentus,
I do not believe you are attacking me, and I am not attacking you. I have my opinions, and thoughts and I am adamant about them.

What you wrote makes sense, if you do not understand animation.
I completely understand what you are saying, but you are incorrect.

The fact that the helicopter is further back and zooms in, has nothing, and I mean it, NOTHING, to do with the perspective of the land moving across the screen in the backgground.

If I am facing the WTC and filming, no matter how far back I am, zooming in and out, it will not produce the effect of the land moving across the screen in the background, UNLESS, the perspective of the filming crew ALSO CHANGED . This would mean a steer from left to right, or from right to left. To capture this effect, the helicopter would have to have flying to the right of the screen.

This alone would cause the WTC to completely obscure the background by the time the land had moved in behind it.

in other words, the perspective of the filmers would have to have changed so much as to place the helicopter OUT OF VIEW of the land behind the trade center. .....so much so, that the buildings would be completely obstructing the view.

I have about 5 days of steady work to do in front of me, and after that, i'm going to be working on an animation i'm creating, aned what I plan to do, eventually, is to show this, and how it's done, and how angles and panning changes completely change the whole background. It appears that it will take a better film to show what really happened, and I just might have to make one.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by videoworldwide

 

When focusing on an object close to the camera and the camera is moving slowly around that object, the foreground will move slow and the background will move by faster. Take a video recorder to a large mall parking lot and drive in a slow circle around a light pole while video taping. The pole will turn slowly while objects in the far background will move by quickly.

When focusing on an object in the far background and the camera is moving, all of the objects in the foreground will move by fast while the background moves slow or stationary.

This is all photography 101 and as soon as the no-planers learn these simple concepts, the sooner we can get rid of the baseless nonesense of bridges and buildings that walk around the screen.

More senseless thoughtless nonsense. At least I can spell nonsense correctly.

Photography 101 huh?
How about elementary school and Newtons laws of physics.

reply to post by videoworldwide

If I am facing the WTC and filming, no matter how far back I am, zooming in and out, it will not produce the effect of the land moving across the screen in the background, UNLESS, the perspective of the filming crew ALSO CHANGED . This would mean a steer from left to right, or from right to left.

Watch the video carefully --- because what you just said is what happened.

The chopper is moving, sideways, while simultaneously zooming. Take a break from ATS, go pop in a movie and look for the exact same thing!!

Try just about any Bruce Willis movie, ( he's done so many ) that has a helicopter aerial shot of buildings, and see for yourself.

OR...do you have a video camera? You can recreate the same effect yourself, just find the appropriate subject, something tall in the middle distance, and notice how the very distant background moves as you keep the tall object centered, and you move horizontally. It's known by a very common word --- 'parallax'. You can look that up, if you like. Maybe there are video examples on the InterTubes....