It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mister.old.school
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 weedwhacker
..fortunately for you, your friends erased the posts and any trace of the facts and evidence that debunked your attempts above.
Whoa, get a grip!
Posts that were "erased" as you said, were identical to many, many, many, many, many others already up and available still for viewing in-thread!!!
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Because, each and every one of those (now banned) members? Was the SAME GUY!! (Rob Balsamo. The titular head of "P4T"....and just about the only thing running that freak show).
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry to say, all of your assertions are laughably incorrect. Rather typical, though, of a weak or non-existent "argument".
Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by Ivann1217
the "Nose out" was enough evidence for me.
I refer you to this post which shows the purposeful deception used to make the eject on the north side appear to be shaped as that of an aircraft "nose".
More detailed analysis also in this post highlighting the intentional deception of the "no plane" fraudsters.
Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
... the rest of the skeptics like mister old school try to use the "oh its due to compression, artifacting, pixelation and 3rd generation video " BS.
Can you point to one, just one, "TV Fakery" piece of "evidence" that is based on original video obtained from the source?
Within all of the topics on this detestable hoax, I've constantly asked for that, and none has ever been provided.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
YES bib and guess what even with all that computing power we have now you can still tell when an image in computer generated.
We know it could not be generated real time then,we cant even do it now, also how could all the videos and pictures on the net within hours off the events be faked its just clutching at straws.edit on 1-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Old-school, it's too bad your request will likely remain ignored. No-planers preach a good sermon, but the spurious "evidence" they stand on invariably crumbles at "free fall speed". I've yet to see ONE substantive or conclusive piece of video evidence demonstrating faked aircraft, "cartoons", or special effects employed by the news media in their coverage of 9/11.
Originally posted by brainsandgravy
NPT arguments are consistently speculative, biased, highly selective, and inconclusive--or--are based on ignorance, false information, logic fallacies, and misinterpretation / misunderstanding of what they're seeing,
Originally posted by brainsandgravy
(e.g., heavily degraded low-res video, compression artifacts, parallax, perspective distortion, etc.) I'm amazed that people on this forum still cite September Clues as a credible source of information--perhaps the worst, most inept and downright laughable piece of dis-info propaganda ever produced.
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
and your request has been addressed several times in various threads you keep linking.
So can you prove the footage used to peddle the real planes hoax, is real, unedited, and from the original video source?
and each of those posts, claims and disinfo pages, have been addressed, refuted, and debunked many times for which you and others have failed to offer counter-arguments to.
Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
and your request has been addressed several times in various threads you keep linking.
I have seen no such video offered.
Originally posted by mister.old.school
Would you be kind enough to facilitate expediency by linking to one or both of:
1) A no-planes theory video based on original source footage
Originally posted by mister.old.school
2) A single video you believe best represents the notion no aircraft struck the towers
Originally posted by mister.old.school
The proof that it is not the "real, unedited, and from the original video source" is overwhelming.
Originally posted by mister.old.school
How does one "counter" clear visual evidence that the "nose out" imagery used by the "no plane" proponents has been altered (heavily blurred) so as to create the apparent shape of an aircraft fuselage? (for example).
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
where did i say one was?
Until those who claim planes hit the towers can first show a verifiable unaltered original video and prove that all video's used to sell real planes show real planes and are real unedited from the original source, I'll be happy to.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
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
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
Originally posted by wmd_2008
YES bib and guess what even with all that computing power we have now you can still tell when an image in computer generated.
We know it could not be generated real time then,we cant even do it now, also how could all the videos and pictures on the net within hours off the events be faked its just clutching at straws.edit on 1-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
all of those claims have in fact been debunked since its a fact that what you say is false about video cannot be manipulated in real time. IT CAN BE DONE NOW AND THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT THEN ALSO EXISTED.
try again.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
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
edit on 1-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: tweak
Originally posted by JimFetzer
I have submitted the following protest to the executive committee of ATS:
subject: Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?
message: This thread has been moved the the "HOAX" section, which is absurd.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by JimFetzer
I have submitted the following protest to the executive committee of ATS:
subject: Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?
message: This thread has been moved the the "HOAX" section, which is absurd.
After reviewing this thread some days ago, and discussing the situation with other top-management at ATS, we have come to the conclusion that the "No Plane Theory" in regard to the events of 9/11 over Manhattan is a intentional hoax in the same category as the "Billy Meier" case in UFOlogy.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Just to mention that I will be broadcasting a two-hour interview with
Dean Hartwell, author of PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS,
My key determination was the significance of Bureau of Transportation records indicating that, of the four alleged flights, only United 175 and United 93 were actuallyscheduled and recorded as having taken off that day.