There Necessarily Ought To Have Been Shadows.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
Why the hell did this end up in the HOAX section?

Can a mod please tell how it was proven that this is false information, let alone deliberately false. I haven´t seen anyone debunk the actual point made in the video, so what is up with that.

So far only one poster seemed to actually get the point, there should´ve been a shadow on the plane as it flew in the buildings shadow side, but there wasn´t it was lit up wich is clearly visible.

This was not debunked, or even spoken about except by CaptChaos, so why is it labeled a HOAX ffs?

And why the hell is this put in HOAX without any explanation at all, mods what the F?

And why am I the only one asking about this?

edit on 17-12-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)

Hey Cap-ain. Op here. I knew it would end up - wrongly- in the hoax section - ATS blanket policy with
regard to any thread raising the possibility of 9/11 tv and video fakery. Very telling, I am sure.
I have not replied to my own thread as I know the form here, but I know this evidence is pretty
compelling. (I can inform on how, I believe (from another source) exactly the
video trickery was accomplished, if you wish?).
,And this is the tip of the iceberg as regards to evidence proving the extensive use of video fakery
on the televisual extravaganza that was the twin towers attack of 9/11. I am only too well aware
of the Fact that 9/11 was a hoax.

Can you imagine the consternation if I asserted (and which is most likely fully factual), that
there were very few if any real victims on 9/11, most being computer generated entities
with no real existences?

Oh Bollocks! I hear some rumblings already!

Pretty much all You need to know about 9/11.
www.cluesforum.info
www.septemberclues.info

Judge for yourself, for once.

Duped, I tell you!
And the enemy needs to keep this hushed.

reply to post by pshea38


I just read through the thread, and listen to all the BS.
You have to seriously wonder whose or what side some of these people are on.
I see the usual crowd, hoops et al, doing what they do best; distracting and
avoiding the elephants at all costs!

The efforts of the maker of the video in the Op are quite clearly not a hoax. and
further, a pretty solid case is made for his/her assertions.

This is all very telling of ATS and some of its regular posters, and I hope this
is becoming more and more clear to see.

Fakery fakery everywhere,
And we lapped it all up.

Bon Voyage!

Originally posted by pshea38


Hey Cap-ain. Op here. I knew it would end up - wrongly- in the hoax section - ATS blanket policy with
regard to any thread raising the possibility of 9/11 tv and video fakery.

Yeah - well that would b because there are so many independent videos out there that all tie in together & show hte same thing that suggestions of altering them ARE hoaxes!

Yours just happens to be particularly stupid because it debunks itself - what with showing hte planes on the dark side of the building and all!!

Plus your track record of rubbish photo interpretation probably helped!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Yours just happens to be particularly stupid because it debunks itself - what with showing hte planes on the dark side of the building and all!!

It is noted that you won´t actually factually debunk the evidence in the OP vid, Is this blanket statement all you got?

I bet it is, becausae I you had any way to debunk it, you and your collegues Hooper, GoodOlDave and such would´ve been all over it already.

Instead a deafening silence and your sad attempt at diversion.

Yeah - well that would b because there are so many independent videos out there that all tie in together & show hte same thing that suggestions of altering them ARE hoaxes!

So the factual evidence in the vid is dismissed right away because other pieces of evidence point towards something else.

Way to deny ignorance. If you think this is a good thing you certainly don´t stand for teruth and objectivity, and apparently, ATS doesn´t either.

Plus your track record of rubbish photo interpretation probably helped!

That would be ridiculous, the OP only posted the vid.

reply to post by CaptainInstaban


Solar azimuth was 122° from North on 2001-09-11 at 09:03. Manhattan is tilted to the southwest. The sun was close to perpendicular to the plane. In Nate Flach's high quality videos, you can see all the shadows where they should be. That's why this thread is a hoax and NPT is an deceitful, offensive waste of time.

reply to post by snowcrash911


The vid isn´t talking about NPT, you are.

And sofar noone even adressed the actual evidence in the vid, yet it was labeled a hoax without discussion.

Please go more in depth with your debunking, post the footage you are talking about, post the other evidence you are talking about.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

The vid isn´t talking about NPT, you are.

And sofar noone even adressed the actual evidence in the vid, yet it was labeled a hoax without discussion.

Please go more in depth with your debunking, post the footage you are talking about, post the other evidence you are talking about.

You seem like a smart enough person to me. You can empirically determine if any video was faked, but the field is in its infancy and some of it may require implementation of complex mathematical algorithms into software. (vector mathematics, linear algebra, gaussian noise distributions)

I'm not sure how to deal with non-falsifiable beliefs though.

And.. if you had a 3D replica of Manhattan on 9/11, you could simulate solar reflection and check any claims. 9/11 researcher Achimspok does, and debunked many such claims, and so did 9/11 video collector Nathan Flach and expert Eric Salter. But.. so many claims never panned out anyway.. what's the use going at it again, especially when I, and many other truthers like me, suspect this isn't only misinformation, but disinformation, contrived to have us deliberately waste our time. You ever wondered about that? The merry-go-round? The red herrings? That doesn't disprove anything, but it ought to make you reflect and contemplate the nature of the animal.

The real truth about 9/11 is somewhat boring, nevertheless it involves complicity in the highest echelons of government. I feel I'm wasting my time discussing video forgery claims in the hoax section, but I have to admit examining NPT claims is a good way to brush up on physics, mechanics and mathematics.

I can see shadows in the clip posted, despite the computerized narrator telling me I can't, which makes me want to hand wave this thread with prejudice.

All the video that was shown on 911 was pre-produced to be aired on 911. Precorded.


The only ALMOST LIVE video broadcast on 911 was a PVI PLANE ANIMATION recorded on a 17 second delay. There was nothing in the air. Multiple templates were produced to make multiple videos of the towers on a sky blue background to serve as templates for various objects inserted over the "SKY BLUE" background. This is how video copies are made for multiple clients. Animations were mapped over the color "SKY BLUE." With PVI software, PVI graphics appear on a designated/colormapped, specific COLOR. The video of the PVI graphic plane animation on a 17 second delay to abort if something went wrong.


Something did happen: the PVI PLANE GRAPHIC animation did not stop where it was planned/intended to stop because the camera position on the helicopter moved. The small movement moved the 3D wireframe model border plotted to stop the animation. The border was moved past the edge of the gray building allowing the animation to continue into the sky blue color which caused the plane graphic to appear. The plane WAS an animated PVI PLANE Graphic Animation.

forum.davidicke.com...

forum.davidicke.com...

07august is a very interesting poster.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Yours just happens to be particularly stupid because it debunks itself - what with showing hte planes on the dark side of the building and all!!

It is noted that you won´t actually factually debunk the evidence in the OP vid, Is this blanket statement all you got?

Others did so, and are still doing so - why would I need to repeat what has been posted so often already??

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Some information it seems would disagree with your statement.
Though it included over 30 different research and production sites, the Manhattan Project was chiefly carried out in three secret scientific cities: Hanford, Washington, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Los Alamos, New Mexico.

The history of the Manhattan Project remained classified for many years. In fact, it was so secret that Harry S. Truman, although vice president of the United States, was not made aware of its existence until after the death of Roosevelt in 1945.

Source

Secrecy in the Manhattan Project was so complete that many people working for the organization did not know what they were working on until they heard about the bombing of Hiroshima on the radio.

Source

And a large billboard at Oak Ridge reinforcing the need for secrecy

edit on 16/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo/syntax

edit on 16/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo

That didn't stop the Russians knowing about it.

Also the key phrase in your second quote is "until they heard about the bombing". Most of the 'compartmentalised' peons who worked on 9/11 might suddenly become a lot less relaxed about it once they saw the carnage.

"But by then it would be too late". Um, not really. One of them could easily blow the whistle. They haven't because they don't exist.