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

reply to post by JimFetzer


I try to stay clear of these threads on the premise that it BS but thats my opinion and the witnesses that saw it in person.

I do believe tho that there has been a lot of editing done to most of the footage from that day and what I mean by editing is cut and splice. If you pay attention, there are many collapse footage clips that begins at the moment of collapse or missing crucial moments such as the "What we saw" video. Its cut during the impacts of the planes and it cuts during collapses.

I could give tens of other examples but it is more fun if you open your perception to the notion.

Oh and Jim, You mentioned the astronomical forces involved in a plane crash. Do you believe those forces could of caused such a small hole in Shanksville? (flight93) The hole was estimated to be less than 15 feet deep and around 20-30 feet wide.

Also, why dont you spend some of your time investigating flight 93 or the lack there of?

Originally posted by pshea38
there is overwhelming video and photographic evidence that everything we saw on 9/11 was computer generated imagery,

Really?

Like what exactly?

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by pshea38
there is overwhelming video and photographic evidence that everything we saw on 9/11 was computer generated imagery,

Really?

Like what exactly?

i am sure i don't need to inform you o logical one, but for others out there, once again:

septemberclues.info... and watch the presentation.

you may be able to argue against one or two points but not the vast majority. i advise anyone interested in the truth to go through all materials presented, especially the victim simulations report by hoi polloi, and come to your own informed conclusions from there.

there is overwhelming video and photographic evidence that everything we saw on 9/11 was computer generated imagery,

Really? Like what exactly?

delete

there is overwhelming video and photographic evidence that everything we saw on 9/11 was computer generated imagery,

Really? Like what exactly?

It already has been explained. If you would like a personal show, you will have to pay for it.

Well Jim's followers since Jim seems to want to avoid the question (tells you a lot Jim's followers) why do you think in the post I made a few posts back that a paint fleck weighing a fraction of a gram can do this to a shuttle window.

Shuttle window pick



I mean if Jim was right this would be like a fly hitting your windscreen would it not, I mean a paint fleck weighing a fraction of a gram hitting the 78,000kg shuttle.

So as Jim REALISES he cant answer the question because it pee's on his parade will any of you care to explain.

You see Jim's favourite word seems to be its obvious, that maybe true if you did not get the right education which seems the case with Jim.

Jim obviously has no idea about physics, kinetic energy, momentum or material strength.

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Well Jim's followers since Jim seems to want to avoid the question (tells you a lot Jim's followers) why do you think in the post I made a few posts back that a paint fleck weighing a fraction of a gram can do this to a shuttle window.

Shuttle window pick



I mean if Jim was right

this would be like a fly hitting your windscreen would it not, I mean a paint fleck weighing a fraction of a gram hitting the 78,000kg shuttle.

So as Jim REALISES he cant answer the question because it pee's on his parade will any of you care to explain.

You see Jim's favourite word seems to be its obvious, that maybe true if you did not get the right education which seems the case with Jim.

Jim obviously has no idea about physics, kinetic energy, momentum or material strength.

I have NO IDEA what you are trying to show with a mere chip on a windscreen..
Is there a point that I missed??

reply to post by backinblack


Yes bib the point is Jim's whole premise re the planes is that aluminium is softer than steel so how could it do what it did well paint is softer than GLASS and it didn't splatter it made a crater.

It's the energy the object has thats important Jim does not grasp this thats his problem, look at his posts when he said the plane should hit and stop dead and fall really Jim the guy has no idea what he is talking about.

Its the kinetic energy of the plane that caused the damage!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack

 

Yes bib the point is Jim's whole premise re the planes is that aluminium is softer than steel so how could it do what it did well paint is softer than GLASS and it didn't splatter it made a crater.

It's the energy the object has thats important Jim does not grasp this thats his problem, look at his posts when he said the plane should hit and stop dead and fall

really Jim the guy has no idea what he is talking about.

Its the kinetic energy of the plane that caused the damage!

Odd, care to argue the same point for flight 93 ?

You know, the one that came down nose first in a field..
Show me all the damage done by that incredible force..
You know the one, F = M A...

Great fun that you call it at the Pentagon but it's forgotten elsewhere?

reply to post by backinblack


Well lets see first

What about the Pentagon?

Do you have any data on the soil at flt 93 crash site? We have data on the impacts and material strength so do you have tests reports on the soil!!

Now off to earn some money be back later tonight!!

Originally posted by JimFetzer
There would have been nothing subtle about the deceleration. The plane's velocity, by and large, would have gone to zero within fractions of a second. Some parts, such as the engines, would have passed into the building, but the wings and tail would have broken off, bodies, seats, and luggage would have fallen to the ground, yet none of that happened. We are not talking about some barely perceptible change it the plane's speed for which the videos we have available are insufficient. Egad! If the plane passes through its own length as it enters the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, then WE ARE DEALING WITH A FANTASY! There is nothing subtle about it. This argument provides conclusive evidence of video fakery. Think about it.

Again, I ask, SHOW ME THE MATH supporting that theory. I'll wait. I've already given you some of it. Feel free to do the rest.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack

 

Yes bib the point is Jim's whole premise re the planes is that aluminium is softer than steel so how could it do what it did well paint is softer than GLASS and it didn't splatter it made a crater.

It's the energy the object has thats important Jim does not grasp this thats his problem, look at his posts when he said the plane should hit and stop dead and fall

really Jim the guy has no idea what he is talking about.

Its the kinetic energy of the plane that caused the damage!

Odd, care to argue the same point for flight 93 ?

You know, the one that came down nose first in a field..
Show me all the damage done by that incredible force..
You know the one, F = M A...

Great fun that you call it at the Pentagon but it's forgotten elsewhere?

Solid object (ground) versus hollow object (building). Simple really.

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by pshea38
there is overwhelming video and photographic evidence that everything we saw on 9/11 was computer generated imagery,

Really?

Like what exactly?

i am sure i don't need to inform you o logical one, but for others out there, once again:

septemberclues.info... and watch the presentation.

you may be able to argue against one or two points but not the vast majority. i advise anyone interested in the truth to go through all materials presented, especially the victim simulations report by hoi polloi, and come to your own informed conclusions from there.

Your using that video presentation as your main argument!

That's no better than Loose Change!

You've been sold a pup mate, and you bought it hook, line and sinker!

Originally posted by pshea38

septemberclues.info... and watch the presentation.

you may be able to argue against one or two points but not the vast majority. i advise anyone interested in the truth to go through all materials presented, especially the victim simulations report by hoi polloi, and come to your own informed conclusions from there.

pshea and you other "No Planes" "truthers" should watch this:

video.google.com...#

September Clues is well and truly debunked!

Mr. Fetzer!! Where'd you run off to? Come back, you have posts that are addressed to you that you have ignored......

Originally posted by FDNY343
Mr. Fetzer!! Where'd you run off to? Come back, you have posts that are addressed to you that you have ignored......

With a bit of luck he has went back to school, or he may have spoke to say some other people like him who give lectures to students on say physics or engineering, and he passed on his theories and they have told him where to go! and he is busy trying to get his head back out from his a*%

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by pshea38

septemberclues.info... and watch the presentation.

you may be able to argue against one or two points but not the vast majority. i advise anyone interested in the truth to go through all materials presented, especially the victim simulations report by hoi polloi, and come to your own informed conclusions from there.

pshea and you other "No Planes" "truthers" should watch this:

video.google.com...#

September Clues is well and truly debunked!

edit on 10-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

thanks for the link logical one. i am afraid it doesn't come anywhere close to debunking septemberclues. there is simply too much irrefutable photographic and video evidence that 9/11 was, from top to bottom, a psychological operation, sold to the public by a complicit media by means of computer generated imagery. thats even outside the whole can of worms that is the simulation of most/all of the victims. i have not just given a cursory glance over these materials, and i am pretty sure, if more took the time to study this damning collection of evidence, that far fewer questions in peoples minds would remain unanswered. even the more recent releases of 9/11 photos and videos are full of anomalies and inconsistencies(surprising with the extra time and more advanced software at their disposal), and this will surely lead to the perpetrators being hoisted by their own petards. and all the metaphorical rats will go down with that sinking ship. and they know it...... heres hoping.

reply to post by pshea38


Give us an example of what of video/photgraphic evidence you think is computer generated and details of why you think it is.

Also do you have a background in video/photography

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by pshea38

septemberclues.info... and watch the presentation.

you may be able to argue against one or two points but not the vast majority. i advise anyone interested in the truth to go through all materials presented, especially the victim simulations report by hoi polloi, and come to your own informed conclusions from there.

pshea and you other "No Planes" "truthers" should watch this:

video.google.com...#

September Clues is well and truly debunked!

edit on 10-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

thanks for the link logical one. i am afraid it doesn't come anywhere close to debunking septemberclues. there is simply too much irrefutable photographic and video evidence that 9/11 was, from top to bottom, a psychological operation, sold to the public by a complicit media by means of computer generated imagery. thats even outside the whole can of worms that is the simulation of most/all of the victims. i have not just given a cursory glance over these materials, and i am pretty sure, if more took the time to study this damning collection of evidence, that far fewer questions in peoples minds would remain unanswered. even the more recent releases of 9/11 photos and videos are full of anomalies and inconsistencies(surprising with the extra time and more advanced software at their disposal), and this will surely lead to the perpetrators being hoisted by their own petards. and all the metaphorical rats will go down with that sinking ship. and they know it...... heres hoping.

edit on 11-2-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)

This stuff is great. When the FOIA NIST Cumulus Database was released ( 911blogger.com... ) people tired of all the "fakery" allegations were thinking, "Oh good, with the release of more and higher quality footage, we may be able to put all this no-plane nonsense to rest!"

At the same time, the no-planers were thinking, "Oh good, all this new footage of fakery will demonstrate to people just how right we are!"

Confirmation bias is a beast ( en.wikipedia.org... ).

Originally posted by pshea38

thanks for the link logical one. i am afraid it doesn't come anywhere close to debunking septemberclues.

You are joking right pshea?........ or perhaps you are in denial.

Did you not get the significance of "September clues" editing out vital parts of the interview with the woman calling from Chelsea?

Or the significance of "September Clues" cutting off the zoomed out video shot just before the plane came into view.

Why would any serious investigative presentation need to edit out any footage to make its case?

I suppose you could argue that's the ONLY way that films like September Clues and Loose change can attempt to deceive people with their nonsense!