A (botched) perspective on an old 9/11 video.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Again you didn't answer the question. My name is also not Neo and I also wasn't talking about the building.

You have clearly lost this discussion. The frames show an impossible situation and this observation has nothing to do with resolution and framerate.

If the plane was clearly captured in the frames the result of the impact should have been captured too.

The footage has been proven fake and noone here has been able to do anything to debunk it.

TheNewSense
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Again you didn't answer the question. My name is also not Neo and I also wasn't talking about the building.

You have clearly lost this discussion. The frames show an impossible situation and this observation has nothing to do with resolution and framerate.

If the plane was clearly captured in the frames the result of the impact should have been captured too.

The footage has been proven fake and noone here has been able to do anything to debunk it.

No the problem is YOU can't understand how the PHYSICS of the collision works here is a video from below



No plane

How did the plane shape hole appear after the impact.

Why are the column trees snapped in a pattern that fits the plane with less damage further along the wing impact area.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e8d27860f5a.jpg[/atsimg]

I did answer YOUR question and I have many times YOU cant see what happened during the impact process due to the POOR RESOLUTION and the frame rate.

reply to post by wmd_2008

I did answer YOUR question and I have many times YOU cant see what happened during the impact process due to the POOR RESOLUTION and the frame rate.

Do the frames show the actual situation at that point or not?

Please explain to me how the plane itself is captured very clearly in those frames but the damage that even you admit is to be expected, is not?

This is the focal point of this discussion, you can try to sidetrack all you want by posting irrelevant othervids and pics of the building but it means nothing.

Our discussion is about the frames of the particular footage that was posted and you are doing a horrible, horrible job at debunking it.

reply to post by TheNewSense


What are you expecting to see that you're not?

In the -- very low resolution, very low frame-rate, very highly compressed -- YouTube video, it's clear that there's an immediate explosion that covers where damage would be. Then the video stops before the smoke/fire clears.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


What damage would you expect to see if it was super duper 3d hd 3000fps framerate footage, that is not visible now even though the plane itself is, very clearly, SkepticOverlord?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Btw, the discussion is about the plane itself in the 4 frames that were posted earlier by a now banned member.

Please read up first so you know what we are talkiing about. Thank you.

reply to post by TheNewSense


Yes... link to post

What are you expecting to see in a video that's so low-res and heavily compressed the tower is shown as a solid gray wall?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Again, the discussion is about the plane, not the tower, if you are not going to make an effort to at least be on topic in this discussion I am not going to humour you. It has been layed out very clearly in this thread what the issues are.

NeoParadigm
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

edit on 29-9-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

reply to post by TheNewSense


I'm aware. What, again, are you expecting to see that you're not seeing? It's a simple question.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Wanna know what I think is funny?

99% of the discussion of 911 is about the 'the way the buildings were damaged'.

A serious detective at a murder scene doesnt get lost so easily. They follow the $$$ and the paper trail.

Ask questions about basics. Who died, who didnt?
What possible motives exist , etc.

Within just a few hours of poking around I easily discovered very eye opening facts no one really cares about.

Although its ambiguous and vague, the point is Sherlock is out of style. Answers are all over but few look.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


What do you expect that is not visible because of your compression/ framerate/ resolution excuse? It's a simple question.

Like I said, the issues have alreay been lined out in this thread, you are already aware of them. Unlike your expectations, so what are they?

reply to post by muzzleflash


This discussion is about the faked footage and it's clear to see what is wrong with it. If anything is a smoking gun it is this.

TheNewSense
What do you expect that is not visible because of your compression/ framerate/ resolution excuse? It's a simple question.

Easy: Detail.

I'm familiar with the entire discussion, which is all over the place... and why I wanted to condense it down into one simple question you seem unwilling to answer.

TheNewSense
This discussion is about the faked footage and it's clear to see what is wrong with it. If anything is a smoking gun it is this.

Explain how footage with such a gross lack of detail can be conclusively considered fake?

TheNewSense
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

This discussion is about the faked footage and it's clear to see what is wrong with it. If anything is a smoking gun it is this.

I was on topic.

I call it looking at clouds for shapes.

$$$ paper cant fool you so easily.

Overarching point:
Want Justice? Do it by the book.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


You already know what was said so qoute it if you have to.

So let's say you could see more detail, what would you expect to see the plane do as it hits the building. You seem unwilling to answer this.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Explain how footage with such a gross lack of detail can be conclusively considered fake?

Explain how a lack of detail would camouflage the total absence of the plane's interaction with the building.

We do agree that we can clearly make out the plane, the fuselage, the wings, the tail, the angle it is in in relation to the building etc?

reply to post by muzzleflash

$$$ paper cant fool you so easily.

So did you solve the case already this way? Why post here if you are more into that part of the conspiracy?

We are not looking at shapes in clouds we are are looking at a plane that is not affected by impact with a building, and flies into it without any resistance.

It is not about seeing things that are not there, it is about not seeing things that are supposed to be there.

At least be accurate when you do your driveby 911 infighting, or stick to your own MO, buddy.

TheNewSense
So let's say you could see more detail, what would you expect to see the plane do as it hits the building.

Crash, but with more detail. (@@)




Apparently this is pointless... and the notion of "no planes" in NYC on 9/11 is ridiculous.


Since the conversation can't anything other than round-robbin avoidance of sane adult conversation, I'll close this thread and urge everyone to move onto subjects that have at least some basis in reality.