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

This is in the Hoax Forum?
Anybody ever explain the Fade To Black during the 'live feed'?
The Hoax Forum needs to go ATS, you now selectively label information as a hoax as you see fit and still call this an open discussion forum.
Who makes that determination, couple of mods? What criteria are involved in that decision, at who's discretion is the word Hoax applied to anything here, why do we need to be told what is a hoax and what isn't, that's not what I thought ATS was about.
Shame.

Originally posted by twitchy
This is in the Hoax Forum?

Anybody ever explain the Fade To Black during the 'live feed'?

The "Fade to Black" is more than adequately explained in this video presentation:

video.google.com...

Originally posted by JimFetzer
It cannot have been a real Boeing 767. Therefore it was a fake Boeing 767. If anyone actually saw it, then they saw something that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane. What else could it be than a sophisticated hologram? There aren't that many choices. Check out Pilots documentary, "9/11: Intercepted", if you want to have even a remote understanding of what we are dealing with here. A hologram could be projected as flying faster than a real Boeing 767. It could enter the building in violation of Newton's laws. And it could pass through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. What else could possibly do that? Only a hologram.

reply to post by wmd_2008

 

edit on 4-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

Well Jim post a link to a HOLOGRAM in daylight projected on to NOTHING and moving at high speed if YOU cant then guess what it's a plane!

Are you really daft enough to think your videos are good enough or have a high enough fps to show anything you claim

Also you should get your experts on because their logic is as mad as yours.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Because they made a mistake! The cruising speed of a Boeing 767 is 560 mph, so that was the speed they used for the hologram. What they misunderstood is that the cruising altitude is 35,000 feet and the plane could not fly that fast at 700-1,000 feet. These guys were not rocket scientists. If the hadn't made mistakes, we would not have been able to figure out what actually happened.

reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Lets see they can make a daylight hologram work but they dont check maximum speed.Jim lets look at your fool sorry full theory.

Hologram planes.
ALL REPEAT ALL videos and pictures taken/shown are fake.
Nuclear weapon with no shockwave,heat,radiation or emp.
microwave weapon to melt cars.

Seriously Jim YOU need help! because you are tuned to the moon! to even think your theory is true.

reply to post by JimFetzer

Originally posted by JimFetzer
It cannot have been a real Boeing 767. Therefore it was a fake Boeing 767. If anyone actually saw it, then they saw something that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane. What else could it be than a sophisticated hologram? There aren't that many choices. Check out Pilots documentary, "9/11: Intercepted", if you want to have even a remote understanding of what we are dealing with here. A hologram could be projected as flying faster than a real Boeing 767. It could enter the building in violation of Newton's laws. And it could pass through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. What else could possibly do that? Only a hologram.

reply to post by wmd_2008

 

edit on 4-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

When testing the crash-resistance of critical structures, Sandia National Laboratories slammed an F4 Phantom jet moving at 500 mph (and loaded with 1,200 gallons of water), into a million ton 12 feet thick block of reinforced concrete. The OS has convinced most people that the video footage of this "crash-test" shows a real crashing jet. Does it look real to you? Could they have possibly used a holographic jet?

When an alleged crash of this sort has been captured on video, most physicists agree that there is really only one way to distinguish between a real jet and a fake holographic one: count the video frames. A typical camcorder records at 30 fps, so when a plane is traveling at a very high rate of speed (>400 knots) no other method of measure can compare to the precision of counting video frames--but not just counting them. Since the goal is identifying possible violations of Newton's laws one must determine if the alleged jet, when entering the object, passes through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. This method is full-proof and will provide irrefutable evidence of jet crash fakery and any conspiracy involving fake jet stuff.

Let's test this method on the F4 Phantom jet "crash-test":

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1cfa117b215e.gif[/atsimg]

Since it's difficult to tell behind the CGI "splash" of the plane precisely when the tail reaches the wall, the authenticity of this "F4 Phantom jet" cannot be absolutely determined. However, since it appears to be at least very close to passing through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air--AND--since we know that in reality the wings and tale of the plane would have crumpled and broken off and seats and other large pieces of hardware would have fallen to the ground, it's reasonable to conclude that this video is FAKE and that the plane is indeed a hologram.

Originally posted by twitchy
This is in the Hoax Forum?

Yes it is because I have was almost part of this made up hoax back 2002. 9 year old hoax still going.


I think little green men come from mars and maybe they used their ray guns on 911. Prove me wrong.

Aliens did 911 to have human hate their leaders. They pretended they were Israelis pretending to be israeli's enemies. I was thinking that maybe the towers were made out of rubber and air, like a balloon. I saw megamind recently and they stole the pyramids by replacing them with and inflated copy.. The truth is coming.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

Originally posted by JimFetzer
It cannot have been a real Boeing 767. Therefore it was a fake Boeing 767. it's reasonable to conclude that this video is FAKE and that the plane is indeed a hologram.

I agree, the f4 Phantom video is a CGI fake and a amateur attempt at that.

Looking at this fake video.. You can see at the 1:02.11 mark that the after effects from adobe photoshop was applied. I heard some kid admitted to fabricating this video.

Hey Mr fetzer, are you aware you are using fake videos to prove a far-out unbelivable theory that has been overly debunked by truthers and debunkers since 2002?

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
it's reasonable to conclude that this video is FAKE and that the plane is indeed a hologram.

I don't think that's reasonable at all. Why would they?
Just for the sake of comparison-

I doubt that these guys shelled out for holograms. I don't have the software to label the frames, maybe someone else could? I'm pretty sure the sled was in the 600mph range when it hit the car. Obviously, the sled isn't an immovable object, but it should be close for comparison sake.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


LOL!! You are a confusing sort....:

I agree, the f4 Phantom video is a CGI fake ....

Did you know that there are several camera angles, from that ONE event??? No, I'm guessing you didn't.....

And....do you not realize that you actually helped Jim, there?? (Well....almost. But, since you were wrong, no harm, no foul....still, you get a forehead slap...and NO soup for you!!!)

(Aside to Brains&Gravy....I caught on to your dry sarcasm....but, it IS hard, when writing, to convey such subtleties, absent tonal voice inflections.....)

Back on my "reply-to" for S_H ....apparently, you "heard" wrong about "some kid" faking it!!! (Want to be more careful with your so-called "facts" in future?).

There's that close up, slo-mo (high speed camera) version used above, and there's this LONG shot, from farther away:



Here, a video compilation of MANY shots...sorry it's 7 minutes, but it covers just about every angle, all in ONE video!!! (and, it has crappy music, as a no-extra-charge bonus!!!):



So, do please, tell us again about the "kid" who "faked" it!! We will be waiting.....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, Sandia NL also did some other impact tests...here, they demonstrate a proposed nuclear waste container design...vital that such casks be very impact-resistant, to prevent a nuclear spill contamination disaster:

(Another aside) ---- in the video below, it is VERY interesting near the end....the cask is subjected, according to the narrator, to a "Jet fuel puddle" fire. For 90 minutes!! And, the temperatures in this open-air, wide open spaces, test? The surface temperature of the test cask reached as high as 1400 degrees F.

So much for Jim Fetzer's claims, in the other thread, that "poo-pooed" the heat of the fires in the WTC Towers, eh???

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by JimFetzer
It was the wrong kind of engine, it was found under a steel scaffolding, the sidewalk was undamaged, there is FOX NEWS footage showing guys in FBI vests unloading something heavy at that location. If I can figure out how to upload images here, I will see if I can get some of them up for you to view. This was just ordinary "fakery" using a planted engine. Nothing "video" about it.

Jim I have to say your no planes theory is full of contradictions. You suggest that the FBI planted the plane's engine on a New York side walk and Fox news was there to capture the event.

But didn't you suggest that the media were in on the conspiracy?.......so why the hell is Fox News filming the incriminating evidence in the first place.

Ahh it could have been a camera man who didn't get briefed.....I hear you cry!

So you are suggesting that the FBI who were supposedly threatening witnesses to keep quiet......somehow didn't spot the Fox camera crew!

Your other rather large contradiction is this one:

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Some of the firemen at certain key positions were in on it. Others, who may have figured out something funny was going on, were not keen on losing their jobs. More than 100 witnesses in the JFK assassination wound up dead. (See JFK: THE DEAD WITNESSES (1994) by Craig Roberts and John Armstrong.) Maybe the didn't want to join them. Has it occurred to you that the government that would murder some 3,000 citizens might be willing to add a few firemen to the list if they spoke their minds? I hope that you will give it some thought.

Jim you suggest that no whistle blower has come forth from the airline staff,the airport staff, air traffic control staff,military,media, firemen, cameramen and all the eyewitnesses because they fear for their lives.
Well It's been 10 years now Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas Matthew Brown,Simon Schama,Leslie Raphael and of course you good self Jim are all alive and well.

What gives.......are you guys all James Bonds and Jason Bournes types, expert at avoiding death by the hands of the secret government assassins!......

Home come you are STILL alive Jim........... by your own admission you should be dead should you not?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


So??

I saw this many years ago. Clever, funny.....and just as implausible as that movie "Speed", with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock.

Other than a possible "calling card" for prospective Hollywood "players", who want to make it big in the "movie business"....this video has no other redeeming value. Certainly has NO relevance whatsoever to this thread topic.....

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

What is this video ment to show or prove?

Consider the following. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the impossible speed of the plane shown hitting the South Tower, pilotsfor911truth.org... and have gone even further In "9/11 World Trade Center Attack", pilotsfor911truth.org... where they explain that the plane in these videos is not only traveling impossibly fast but that, at the speed shown, such a plane would have been unmanageable and even broken apart. Their research demonstrate that the arguments and evidence I am presenting is not lacking or fabricated, since Pilots has confirmed one of the most basic proofs of video fakery, namely, the impossible speed, in spades! If the Skunk Works is for the discussion of fabrications produced by the government, then this thread probably belongs there. But the only "hoax" aspect to what I have been presenting is that the official story about 9/11 is itself a hoax, including the use of video fakery. I submit that what Pilots has contributed qualifies as new and compelling evidence that more than justified the return of this thread to the realm of serious discussion free from the denigrating characterization of "HOAX".

Here is the text corresponding to the first link I have provided. As Pilots has observed, the YouTubes that it has posted for their more extensive discussion, "9/11 World Trade Center Attack", which I viewed before they were deleted, have been removed. This, I trust you can appreciate, appears to be part of an ongoing program to deny the truth to the American public:

9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at pilotsfor911truth.org.... Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

pilotsfor911truth.org... for full member list.

pilotsfor911truth.org... to join.

Comments? Discuss here.

[1] www.luizmonteiro.com..., www.csgnetwork.com... (Equivalent Airspeed and Mach One Calculator to convert Mach into True Airspeed based on altitude/temp and then into Equivalent Airspeed)
[2] www.aerospaceweb.org...

Their newest release, "9/11 Intercepted", pilotsfor911truth.org... , discusses what happened in the American skies that day or, better, what didn't happen in the skies that day: "War Games, Simulated radar tracks, aircraft exceeding their max operating limits by more than 130-150 knots, inaccurate aircraft position reports, false aircraft target reports, aircraft converging -- flying virtually in formation with -- and then diverging from reported 9/11 aircraft, fighters launched in the wrong direction, aircraft seemingly still airborne after the alleged attack, poor communications, phones not working.... Why were our defenses ineffective?" Personally, I find it difficult to understand why anyone who is aware that there was a massive "stand down" of the US Air Force on 9/11 does not appreciate that that is not something that those 19 Islamic fundamentalists--who enjoyed strip shows, lap dancing, and booze, contrary to the tenets of Islam--provides powerful evidence by itself that 9/11 was an "inside job". It seems to me that a forum that entertains discussion of aliens and UFOs without classifying them in the category of "HOAX" ought to be willing to tolerate video fakery, for which the available relevant evidence is more objective, scientific, and compelling.

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.
Non
Your evidence is lacking and fabricated. As has been pointed out by several members in this and many previous threads.

As a result, many existing and all new threads related to "No Planes" as it relates to the World Trade Center attack will be relegated to the hoax forum.

However, this is not to say the action is permanent. In the past, given fresh evidence, some topics have moved from the "HOAX" forum into the Skunk Works forum. If you (or others) are able to present compelling evidence that does not involve altered videos and/or imagery, we may consider such an action for this topic.

Feel free to continue the discussion, however, the topic will remain in the "HOAX" forum.


edit to add...


No chest-thumping, thousand-link posts, indignation, or other posting activity will reverse this decision other than new and compelling evidence as described above.

edit on 3-3-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

reply to post by JimFetzer


Why are you unable to respond to simply-stated direction questions?

Which video is the basis for your frame-by-frame analysis of the aircraft speed?

Sorry I haven't been here for a while. Here's one, mister.old.school:

killtown.blogspot.com...

There's a lot of excellent material on Morgan Reynold's web site,

nomoregames.net...

reply to post by mister.old.school

reply to post by JimFetzer


According to your sample video, the 767-200 traveled it's entire length in 11 frames of a 30fps video (being most generous). That translates to traveling the entire length, 165 feet, in 0.3667 seconds, or about 450 feet per second. When we convert that to miles per hour, the result is 307 mph.

(Even if we use the longest 767 made at 185 feet, we still come up with 504 feet per second, or 344 mph)

(Even if we get generous and attribute 10 frames to plane-motion because of video compression errors, and use the longest 767 made, the result is still only 420 mph)


You've previously claimed that a frame-counting video analysis proves the aircraft was traveling at an impossible velocity. However, the video you just sourced proves otherwise. And not only that, the very video you provided, when counting frames to calculate airspeed, disproves the claims made by Pilots for Truth.

No, that is false. These are two distinct questions. The purpose of the study of the Fairbanks' video is to show that the plane traveled its entire length into the building as it did its entire length through air. The actual time to do either would be the same.

That only reflects upon the equal-velocity-through-air-and-building argument. The first point--about the impossible speed--is one that has been addressed most recently by Pilots for 9/11 Truth as I have reported most recently in the post before your last.

I am going to contact Pilots for links to their documentary, "9/11: The World Trade Center Attacks", so everyone can see that they have confirmed the impossible speed, where a plane flying at that speed would actually be uncontrollable and fall apart.

reply to post by mister.old.school

Originally posted by JimFetzer
No, that is false. These are two distinct questions.

When I asked you for your example of what video was used for the analysis of the airspeed, based on frame-counting, that's the one you provided.

Furthermore, you've yet to establish how an object in motion, tending to stay in motion, refutes Newton's Laws as you've previously stated. Proving that the tail of an aircraft traveling in excess of 400 mph, with significant kinetic energy, remains roughly at the same velocity when the nose encounters a hollow structure is hardly evidence any physical laws have been subverted.