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.
You got to love it though - just think - his missile theory is true because the videos are fake and the proof that the videos are fake? - because the missile theory is true! Win, win all around!
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
Nice try. You made the statement, now back it up. Stop squirming and show how how all those videos are "fraudulent" or admit that the theory has no basis. You can start with any one of them and do a frame by frame analysis to show how and where it was faked. Once you have that done, you may have something to debate with.
What a cartoon you are. You don't run the show here junior, and your tantrums only make you look more clownish.
For the readers, it is verboten to have "video fakery" threads on ATS, as it is on all controlled sites. Pteridine is well aware of that.
I suggest anyone to head over to September Clues, Killtown, or LetsRoll if they're interested in looking at the mountain of evidence against each and every image that contains a 911 jet.
This thread is regarding the columns 145-152 and the obvious-to-a-barnyard-animal-left-to-right damage, and my opponent is demanding standards of proof he knows will get this thread closed. As an alternative, I have offered him a chance to post any number of images to be scrutinized by all.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
Originally posted by huh2142
What also puzzles me is the belief that a lower kinetic energy missile that hits at a less than optimal angle can do damage while higher kinetic large aircraft traveling near max speed can not damage the building when it hits dead on (optimally).
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
Originally posted by huh2142
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
What also puzzles me is the belief that a lower kinetic energy missile that hits at a less than optimal angle can do damage while higher kinetic large aircraft traveling near max speed can not damage the building when it hits dead on (optimally).
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
Heh...your rehearsed answers won't work here. The Naudet film is a fraud for completely different reasons. Raphael isn't a no-planer, but he exposes as frauds the Naudets, the FDNY, the NYPD and more, and names names.
I'll give you a few days to read it.
peanutbrain's videos come in several parts, and it took me about an hour to watch them all. You're a fast study.
Yes, wings are flexible, but then they're strong enough to cut through steel. Like in this video where one is ripped off by the air.
Find a way to show that all the videos with planes are faked or wave goodbye to the invisible missile theory.
Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by roboe
I'm using the Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition, released in 2002.
I went over the Luc Courchesne WMV, and although it's really small and hard to see, it appears the footage in the Naudet DVD was pulled from early in the Courchesne footage.
The Naudet's footage was released in 2002, but the Courchesne footage doesn't appear to have been released until 2004, although that's not cast in stone. That's when the CBC aired it. However, note the quality of the footage in the Naudet film as compared to the WMV file. If the CBC version had the full footage, I could get a better screen shot of it to compare.
Compare the little whisp highlighted below:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b2566aa6c27.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e95727ff4c99.jpg[/atsimg]
By the way, like many of the amateur photographers, Luc is another 3D animator. His work can be found here:
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
The comment was how peanutbrain didn't show fakery in the raw video. The raw video peanutbrain discussed was not part of a documentary.
Can you show fakery in the raw video? You claimed that all video containing planes was faked.
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
The comment was how peanutbrain didn't show fakery in the raw video. The raw video peanutbrain discussed was not part of a documentary.
Can you show fakery in the raw video? You claimed that all video containing planes was faked.
Hey, great topic for a debate.
Add that to the pile of debate topics you're avoiding.
I hereby challenge pteridine to a debate regarding the media's role in 911, where I intend to show every video or image that contains a 911 jet is a fraud.
You don't need to waste time with a debate. Go ahead and post it if you have it. If you don't, throw in the towel on another no-plane theory.
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
You don't need to waste time with a debate. Go ahead and post it if you have it. If you don't, throw in the towel on another no-plane theory.
Interesting story.
They're all fake, the damage proves it.
Note on column 152, how the cladding is thinly sliced and wedged, likely caused by the thin wing of a missile.
On columns 147 and 148, they have been scooped out by the 12 inch warhead,
So you can plainly see the inside of the wings near the engines would strike first. The fuselage and engines would be decelerating immediately on impact, yet this didn't occur. The jet flies into the building, all the way down to the tail, without slowing down. This has been proved by calculating the frame rates it takes for the jet to fly through the air, and the frame rate it takes for the jet to fly into the buildings, which are the same. Video, after video. We know this is impossible, thanks to physics, don't we, smart guy?
I offer the above to the readers. You don't read.
Originally posted by septic
Interesting story.
They're all fake, the damage proves it.
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
I appreciate your need to consult an expert in all things, save belligerence. I'm capable of learning, and so is anyone who applies themselves, except maybe you and the other two OS readers. I do appreciate the bumps though.
Seems you and most of the other sheep-types like to gauge truth on how many people hop on your bandwagon, like a high-school popularity contest. That's the sort of herd mentality that will keep you forever dependent on other folks to do your thinking for you; so I urge you to start thinking for yourself. Nothing builds self-esteem better than doing something for yourself, just ask an expert.
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
Since you can't scrutinize the evidence and come up with a better explanation, can you find someone who can? Gather pteridine and go expert hunting.
That you disagree with the conclusions is evident, but if you can't debate my points, you lose.