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

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by tommyjo

 

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, we've been through this before: video compression artifacts.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4e167c6cd88.gif[/atsimg]

which has been addressed repeatedly and explained why its wrong and a faulty comparison.

pretending it wasn't answered, won't change the fact it was.

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
which has been addressed repeatedly and explained why its wrong and a faulty comparison.

Can you explain why?

Can you provide a video from the "no plane" fraudsters that is based on an original first-generation video obtained from the source?

Originally posted by Logical one
Originally posted by benoni

Does this look real....or are you going to argue because I have never seen a Boeing crash into the WTC, I cannot question how it looks like CGI???
Reminds me of those Warner Bros cartoons.....BEEP BEEP!!

A little slow aren't we benoni?
Do you seriously think that a multiply reproduced video, with a video software effect, uploaded onto YouTube is gonna look any different?
Ally this to the fact that you have NEVER actually witnessed any jet aircraft impact ANY building,

and thats the usual red-herring skeptics try to use that something only looks fake or cartoonish because one hasn't actually witnessed any jet aircraft impacting a building... Its perhaps one of the most absurd and obvious classic disinfo arguments one can make that peoples common sense can't distinguish reality from fantasy.

the luc courchesne vid is possibly the most blatant example and evidence of fakery. Anyone yes, there is a difference between a real plane crash and a video software effect which the Luc C is.

Originally posted by Logical one
let alone one impacting the non conventional tube frame designed buildings that were the Twin Towers.....you would be clueless as to what a real impact would look like.

yes, anyone that thinks the above video impact and plane are real, would have to be clueless, in denial or intentionally spreading disinfo.

Originally posted by Logical one
So even though I'm sure you've done plenty of YouTube watching for your research, you're most likely non the wiser as to what such an event would actually look like on the ground in non YouTube land.
Seems I was right when I inferred you were being naive benoni.

the only ones being naive, are all those who believe that video is real and support the OS that real boeing passenger planes hit the towers

Originally posted by brainsandgravy

Originally posted by pshea38

yes man. it has been proven without doubt at:

septemberclues.info...

if you are genuine, you will go through the vicsims report, and everything else besides, to learn the proven extent of the fakery.

if you are not, you won't.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who buy in to Simon Shack's sophistry. September Clues must be one the most sophomoric, easily debunked works of "film" propaganda ever created. The guy is simply obtuse (and out of his mind). Though I must give him an A for effort.

and as usual with those making that claim, they never seem to be able to prove it.

whats really amazing is the number of people who use sophomoric debunking techniques and claims about SC having been disproven when in reality, any rational objective thinking person who does real comprehensive research can see ample evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pshea38

IF you "became convinced utterly" by that piece of fifth made by "Simon Shack", then I fear for your critical thinking abilities.
Why doesn't the video in THIS POST:
...make any impression on you?

maybe because its one of the lamest attempts at debunking the nrpt... an epic fail.

please show exactly how and where that so-called debunk, debunked SC... of course i expect to see nothing more than the same rhetorical and empty claims.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OR, the one by "Yougene Debs" at YouTube? He ALSO specifically exposes "Simon Shack" as a fraud, liar and con artist. Either "Shack" is those things, or he is just incredibly stupid. Take your pick:

please show how and where exactly it debunked or exposed simon shack as a fraud, liar and con artist. Either you'll show some evidence to support that claim, or your claim is nothing more than your opinion based on the real lack of critical thinking and debating abilities.

So did all the CGI experts come to this thread and give you their opinions or do they only do the Alien De bunking?

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Originally posted by JimFetzer

"9/11 Amateur, Part 2" is simply absurd in its claims.

which is nothing more than your opinion.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
www.youtube.com...
There's no second explosion--Shack is confused by what he is seeing. What he calls a "second explosion" is nothing more than flames inside the impact hole coming into view as the initial smoke cloud is being blown away by the wind.

except thats not what the evidence shows not to mention there's been several posts, threads and arguments that have countered what you claim isn't happening.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
The "penciled-in" gash allegation is total non-sense.

except the visual evidence proves otherwise which is clear to any objective and honest person who examines those images.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
The Naudet footage was aired long after the media's live coverage--none of which show the impact hole with the extra penciled-in "gash".

which is exactly one of the reasons why the footage is busted.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Yet Shack believes that while all that footage was being aired, some secret conspirators decided it was a good idea to tinker with the Naudet footage in After Effects adding a needed extra gash, even though it would contradict all other images of the impact hole already aired and being replayed over and over.

....which is totally IRRELEVANT because the fact the naudets footage shows an unknown anomaly where it should be appearing in a key area where the WING is supposed to have sliced through, is all that matters and cannot be refuted other than via denial and trying to dismiss it as innocuous because it "doesn't make sense" in relation to other videos. Considering all the SLOPPY fakery and mistakes the perps made those like you want to dismiss as nothing suspect, it makes perfect sense and illustrates the blatant fakery as well as validates whats been explained that the perps counted on people being too stupid and ignorant to unravel the hoax not to mention did they count on their own technology being used to expose them when their deeds could be examined frame by frame.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
The video I posted was from the Jim Huibregtse footage which was filmed just after the first impact (before any news cameras) and clearly shows that the "gash" is black smoke pouring out of a hole on the western edge of the building. The smoke then dissipates and turns white. This footage was used in a National Geographic documentary, "Growing Up at Ground Zero", from 2003, years before Shack's "9/11 Amateur, Part 2" was published.

sorry, but the video you're talking about nor any other video is irrelevant in disproving whats IRREFUTABLE in the naudet.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
If you can't see the relevance of the south tower swaying abruptly to the north upon impact (kind of like "back and to the left"), then I can't help you with the third video I posted.

edit on 9-2-2011 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)

and if you don't understand that the tower swaying doesn't disprove nrpt, then no one could ever help you see past the facts and evidence that perpetuate your ignorance on this subject.

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:
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)

not by any stretch of your imagination.

as pshea said: "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"

these so-called sc debunkings are beyond incomplete and lacking in any real substance to be called a debunking.

Originally posted by Ivann1217
the "Nose out" was enough evidence for me. let alone all the questions raised after the fact about DEW's. These are facts that should not be ignored or shoved aside just because some feeble minds don't understand such technology.

What about over active imaginations, feeble minds my ars* lets look at Jims overall theory based on this and his other threads.

Daylight hologram that moves ie not projected to a stationary spot, SORRY its Not possible!!!
All videos and pictures on the day posted on the net are all fake
Small nuclear weapon used with no shockwave,heat,radiation or emp
Microwave weapon to melt cars

I THINK WE CAN SEE WHO HAS A FEEBLE MIND just claim any BS you want.

See Jim will avoid certain questions he claimed the planes could not punch a whole through the facade he claims that because the plane is aluminium it couldn't happen, now when shown a picture of the space shuttle window damaged by a fleck of paint he would not explain why it happened can you? or what about the Empire State Building crash how did a smaller lighter slower plane manage to put an engine through 8" of limestone several layers brick through several room walls then several layers of brick and another 8" of limestone on the other side of the building do you want explain because Jim with a Phd in physics cant.

Many of your feeble minds KNOW how it works again DO YOU!!!!

Originally posted by Logical one
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'm not sure what exactly you're talking about without any specific link or line by line analysis (something debunkers and skeptics leave out quite often), but you're exactly right, why would any footage like the NAUDET and others, or REAL DEPICTION of REAL LIFE EVENTS be EDITED, TAMPERED WITH or Altered in any way to make its case? On 9/11, it appears MOST if not ALL have been... Yet those like you continue ignoring obvious fakery, see nothing suspect with physical impossibilities or unknown anomalies occurring in the most unlikely places and times. So what exactly is pshea in denial of?

how convenient. and how odd that you can dismiss so many obvious unexplained problems and contradictions with the OS and alleged amateur or live footage. its truly bizarre.

Originally posted by Logical one
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!

actually thats exactly the type of deception Sept clues and Loose change were exposing from the videos those like you use as evidence of real planes to begin with.

reply to post by truthseekr1111


Hi Jim is that you!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by JimFetzer
A new member of the Scholars forum has posted this. Do any of your know about PVI? Tell me more. Thanks.

PVI stands for Persons Visually Impaired.

You need to be careful Jim, your fantasy may be fast heading into insanity.

more ad homs i see.... gotta love this place where things like this are allowed (even when warnings are given about this), but those simply engaging in intelligent discourse posting evidence and facts are the ones being warning or banned.

as to PVI, here's an interesting story from someone with unlike you, experience and first-hand knowledge on the subject:

From the moment that I saw that wacky image of strange squat, black plane image on TV on 911, I knew it was fake. Reynolds said it was a cartoon, but it was a graphic animation.

It wasn't until someone sent me September Clues in 2007 that I accepted the US govt is indeed evil, a conniving, lying pack of thieves. I had been distrustful since Kennedy was assassinated, but learning Nixon was involved w the moon landing hoax w Kubrick, I have been on a quest to learn what the perps did on 911. 911 was a HUGE PUNK on the US and the world. Of all the people with whom I spoke, I could only find one person in NYC who cared about 911 & agreed with me. Fortunately, that person is a gifted psychic. Although he/she is not very worldly or knowledgable about many things, I did get him/her to look into questions that I had. It was that person who encouraged me to see what more I could find. I am now at the point where I can finally see how vicsims were created for each company involved in the 911 implosions of WTC. All the companies with victims/vicsims were put in the WTC for the planned 911 false flag event. All were business associates or family relations to the Bush/Cheney family.

One thing is for certain, 911 was a resurrection of Operation Northwoods/Mongoose, substituting TV broadcasts for radio broadcasts.

I took a freelance job to learn to operate the PVI virtual media services, LVIS computer in August 2007. PVI short course was to learn to map camera shots of football fields. A week of classes by PVI to learn operation LVIS computers. The purpose of the LVIS computer was to generate 1st down and lines of scrimmage/logo with yard & down for each football play. The camera shots, left, right and center are mapped with virtual wireframes before the game and used during the game to generate yellow and blue yard lines.

Day four of the PVI class, we learned how to generate an animation or a icon on the pre-programmed wireframe path on a particular camera shot. Pick the point, execute the animation. A gush came over me at the moment that I saw that that was how they generated the plane icon on 911. The operator of the LVIS computer did not have to be at the site. It could be done from anywhere the LVIS computer and monitor was located. I can't walk you through the parts of the computer program and monitor without props or diagrams. The point is I have worked in TV graphics for many years, I know how easy it is to composite video, HOW EASY IT IS TO INSERT an ANIMATION in a LIVE BROADCAST. Now, that PVI has sold out to ESPN and Sportsvision, I am sure the perps involved with 911 broadcast have gone into hiding.

PVI Virtual Animation was what was broadcast.
Google PVI Virtual Media Services.

Short rundown:
COMPANY OVERVIEW

PVI Virtual Media Services LLC designs and develops vision-based virtual image entertainment technology for television. The company’s InVU virtual placement technology allows broadcast, cable, and broadband networks to insert computer-generated images into live or pre-recorded video broadcasts of events, sports contests, and other television programming. Its products include GameVU to insert a line of scrimmage, a player's path, or animated or branded images onto the field; PlayerVU, a data-gathering system to capture and record the position, direction, and speed of moving objects in sporting events; and BrandVU for virtual product placement. The company was founded in 1990 and is based in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. PVI Virtual Media Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of ESPN, Inc.

some great research by 07august... well done mate.

reply to post by truthseekr1111


You must be JIM have a good laugh at this EVERYONE just

PVI in action



Yes folks look how convicing this is

Taken to a new low do you really think that system could do what you claim JIM really sorry but a few members here are keen, very keen even pro photographers and video users so your totally deluded if you think this could generate a life like image if it can PROVE IT, BET YOU CANT!!!!

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
please show exactly how and where that so-called debunk, debunked SC... of course i expect to see nothing more than the same rhetorical and empty claims.

Since you still haven't provided one piece of evidence for the no-plane theory that is based on original footage from the source, despite repeated requests, I'll expand the query somewhat.

What do you believe is the single-best piece of video evidence (not an entire multi-minute video production) that supports the notion that no aircraft struck the World Trade Center towers?

Well, given we KNOW that the videos are fake, the question becomes HOW it was done. PVI is only one of many possibilities, where video compsiting, CGIs, and the use of a hologram are other alternatives. Personally, I find the weight of the evidence favors the use of a hologram. What is your explanation?

reply to post by wmd_2008

Good post, truthseeker1111. You make a lot of excellent points. brainsandgravy doesn't seem to appreciate how poorly done they were, including violations of the laws of aerodynamics,of physics, and of engineering. The eight (8) floors of horizontal resistance would have been enormous. Notice how the debunkers skate about the point that, if a real plane had hit only one of those floors suspected in space, it would have been sliced and diced! They have to know better, which means that their defenses of these videos are as fake as the videos themselves.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

Well, my Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science, not physics. But you don't need a Ph.D. in physics to understand the absurdity of the situation. The alleged planes are supposed to have sliced through the steel-and-concrete buildings and created those cookie-cutter cut outs, while the smaller plane at the Pentagon impacts with the far softer limestone facade and we can't even find an impression of the plane! For more on the Pentagon, check out "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

reply to post by wmd_2008

Originally posted by mister.old.school
The speed is correct and possible as John Lear originally stated when first presented with the issue in search of his opinion. I doubt it would be the first time in history where a passenger airline operated beyond design parameters. For example the engine nacelles were supposed to have broken off the plane that landed in the Hudson river, but no such thing happened.

its a red-herring fest with you isn't it... need a fishing pole?

You can't explain away the visual evidence nor the evidence thats been presented by p4t explaining that the alleged planes speed was impossible, so you divert attention to John Lear being an operative bs even though he never worked for the cia but just flew for companies that were contracted by them.
But in any case, lets first examine the context and statements about your issue with his "change" in positions on the speed with some links and sources, then we can compare it with all the data and new information thats come to light after that "change" that still would be separate from what p4t revealed in their argument.
Lastly, the hudson river incident is not comparable and using the debunked argument about not being the first airline operating beyond design parameters, has been addressed in-depth ad-naseum in two threads on this subject which you apparently were conveniently absent from. So when you can debunk the evidence in those threads, let us know. In the meantime, happy fishing.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/58e186339183.gif[/atsimg]

Jim, you miss the point. This image has been stabilized. Vertical and horizontal camera movement have been taken out. The plane remains unmoved relative to the frame. Place your mouse pointer over the tail of the plane and you will see that the plane does not move. However, because the plane actually IS moving into the building,

So Please PROVE the plane is moving.

The fact is the hez vid is fake and if anythings moving, its the building... most with common sense understand the hez/cnn vid does not depict reality and know its nothing more than a computer generated image most likely done with PVI.

There is ZERO reaction to this cgi plane upon impact, ZERO. Unless Newton was taking a vacation on 9/11, this image is IMPOSSIBLE.

the building appears to move into the plane (within the frame).

yes, that is the magic and illusion cgi creates... and the red line illustrates it.

I know its hard for most to accept they've been deceived and duped, but that IS 9/11 reality, not the above gif.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
This allows the edge of the building to act as a marker of frame by frame movement of distance. IT IS SHOWING DECELERATION OF THE PLANE AS IT ENTERS THE BUILDING. The movement of the edge of the building slows down as can be seen by comparing the equidistant markers.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
You dodge questions like a politician. I asked you to explain the violent swaying of the building to the north upon impact of your "holographic" plane.

perhaps jim simply hasn't fully explained, realized or considered all the factors that comprised the plane hoax.

pre-planted explosives beginning on one side could hypothetically create the sway or push.
a holographic image could hypothetically be masking the drone or missile both on the footage and/or live realtime (both technologies that existed in 2001)
and there doesn't have to have been a "boeing 767-200" present to create some of the damage

all aspects that also comprises the NRPT which most seem to be ignorant of due to denial or lack of research.