Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

SEPTEMBER CLUES (NEW) 911 video

  • 09-04-2009 3:56am
    #1
    polishpaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 377 ✭✭


    http://blip.tv/file/1272900 part 1
    http://blip.tv/file/1273564 part 2

    I just watched this today and thought it was very good.This is the first time i've seen a video look at the media coverage like this. Very well made.
    What are your thoughts?


Comments

  • #2
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    My thoughts are that "it was very good" doesn't really say much.

    Care to offer some detail?


  • #3
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mahatma Coat's post discussing how moderators should approach posts like this has been moved to the appropriate thread


  • #4
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    I watched a bit and to be honest the idea that the media were complicit has a fatal flaw. You're adding literally thousands more people that have to be involved in the conspiracy. The numbers you'd now be looking at for 911 being an inside job would make it nigh on impossible for it not to get out and it hasn't, after more than seven years.


  • #5
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    well its the first time that I've seen all the footage of the event at the same time, and it does raise some very interesting issues.

    variations in the height of the planes approach, the fairly obvious lack of an aproaching plane in some shots, the sketchy audio, the same woman being heard on 3-4 different tapes supposedly from different locations.

    and of course the nose out bit, always found that a bit strange.

    am going to wtch the second half now


  • #6
    Stingbat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Stingbat


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    well its the first time that I've seen all the footage of the event at the same time, and it does raise some very interesting issues.

    variations in the height of the planes approach, the fairly obvious lack of an aproaching plane in some shots, the sketchy audio, the same woman being heard on 3-4 different tapes supposedly from different locations.

    and of course the nose out bit, always found that a bit strange.

    am going to wtch the second half now
    Hello everybody. Have seen many documentaries about 911 but not the one you are referring to. Im afraid I have to agree with Meglome however. The chances of a huge ammount of people keeping a secret this big for this long are exceedingly slim.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    as I said in the redirected post, WATCH the docco, then we can discuss the points raised in it.

    there are already quite a few things that I wish to raise with others here.

    the spurious foreground and backround images, the apparent disparaties in the angle of approach for the second plane, the propreitry of a lot of the videos, that 17 second beep, why we didnt see a plane in the Helicopters Wide angle shot and only on the 3rd zoom, theres a lot of information presented at a breakneck speed, its gonna take me a few looks to formulate the questions clearly.


  • #8
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    as I said in the redirected post, WATCH the docco, then we can discuss the points raised in it.

    there are already quite a few things that I wish to raise with others here.

    the spurious foreground and backround images, the apparent disparaties in the angle of approach for the second plane, the propreitry of a lot of the videos, that 17 second beep,

    Because the transmission tower of that signal was actually on top of the tower
    why we didnt see a plane in the Helicopters Wide angle shot and only on the 3rd zoom, theres a lot of information presented at a breakneck speed, its gonna take me a few looks to formulate the questions clearly.


    How about one simple question. It was the middle of downtown manhattan a borough with a population of 1.6 million. The planes hit two of the most iconic buildings in the skyline.

    Thats what's completely idiotic about this theory. It just takes one person with a camcorder to discredit it. OR YOU KNOW THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF WITNESSES.


  • #9
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    first question, have you watched it?


  • #10
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    first question, have you watched it?

    Yes, yes I have. I've also spent a decade working in video post production, I could point about the dozens of factual inaccuracies in the technical aspects of the claims of the film but the absolute incontroversial flaw in the film's idiocy is that it suggests the whole thing happened IN BROAD DAYLIGHT IN FRONT OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE


  • #11
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    so We're back to unfaltering belief in Eye Witness reports,

    funny that, werent you the same person who dismissed Eyewitness reports as Anecdotal evidence.

    were you one of the hunderds of thousands of people, did you see it for yerself, or are you just going by what you saw on telly like almost everyone else, hell a lot of people in new york only saw it on telly, find me the Hundered thousand people who actually saw the plane impact - not just those who were in new york, but those people who happened to be lookin at the towers at the time of impact- hell find a thousand even, then you can weed out all the ones who say they saw a missile, and the ones who heard explosions etc

    this was media event, most of the people who were in new york at the time saw the impacts on the telly.

    the question you might be able to answer tho is the proprietry of the 'amatuer' videos, according to the docco most of these seem to have come from professional photographers and filmmakers, is this true.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    so We're back to unfaltering belief in Eye Witness reports,

    It's not eye witness reports singular it's not even eye witness reports pural, it's eye witness reports in the tens of thousands.
    funny that, werent you the same person who dismissed Eyewitness reports as Anecdotal evidence.

    You're basically saying. "I know they reported that the score in the match was 3-1. I know that there were 70,000 people in the stadium, but I refuse to believe my team lost by two goals."

    were you one of the hunderds of thousands of people, did you see it for yerself, or are you just going by what you saw on telly like almost everyone else,

    No there were two friends of mine who were among the tens of thousands. Like say the bystanders and firecrew in the Naudet video of the first crash, unless you are saying they are all actors.

    hell a lot of people in new york only saw it on telly, find me the Hundered thousand people who actually saw the plane impact - not just those who were in new york, but those people who happened to be lookin at the towers at the time of impact- hell find a thousand even, then you can weed out all the ones who say they saw a missile, and the ones who heard explosions etc


    this was media event, most of the people who were in new york at the time saw the impacts on the telly.


    No, do you understand the concept "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" WHY DON'T YOU scurry off and find me TEN Witnesses who claim what they saw was a missile.


    the question you might be able to answer tho is the proprietry of the 'amatuer' videos, according to the docco most of these seem to have come from professional photographers and filmmakers, is this true.

    The majority do. But if you were a tourist and saw smoke coming from WTC 2 that morning perhaps you might have filmed it? And captured the 2nd flight? All it would have taken to undo this idiotic conspiracy theory is ONE camera filming and capturing the missiles.


  • #13
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    heres one to start with
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq8eiNxKFXI


  • #14
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So, again, not to cause any kind of undue speculation but the sound itself was not of a prop plane. It was perhaps a jet. But it could have been a missile as well.
    I'm quite sure it didn't sound anything like a prop plane.

    And note how he didn't say he saw a missile.

    Convincing stuff there.


  • #15
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    heres one to start with
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq8eiNxKFXI


    "sounded like a missile".

    Do you need to have the concepts of "metaphor" or "simile" explained to you? Perhaps with flash cards? Or Seasame street could do a song?

    Jesus.


  • #16
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Bugger, wrong button, nevermind


  • #17
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    heres one to start with
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq8eiNxKFXI

    Have you ever been standing near a car crash? I have and I can tell you it clearly sounded like an explosion, but I can say as an absolute fact it wasn't an explosion.

    Can I ask you a question Mahatma? How many people do you think were involved in 911? I'm taking from your previous posts that you pretty much fully believe in the CT.


  • #18
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    meglome wrote: »
    Have you ever been standing near a car crash? I have and I can tell you it clearly sounded like an explosion, but I can say as an absolute fact it wasn't an explosion.

    Can I ask you a question Mahatma? How many people do you think were involved in 911? I'm taking from your previous posts that you pretty much fully believe in the CT.


    Before We start

    Have you Watched the Video we are discussing Meglome?


  • #19
    6th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Diogenes wrote: »
    "sounded like a missile".

    Do you need to have the concepts of "metaphor" or "simile" explained to you? Perhaps with flash cards? Or Seasame street could do a song?

    Jesus.

    Diogenes, cop on.
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Bugger, wrong button, nevermind

    Thats just childish. Is that you're way of saying "oh look I reported your post"? In the charter it says:
    • Reporting posts
    If you report a post please do not then go on to address the post.


  • #20
    D.MAN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭D.MAN


    polishpaddy wrote: »
    http://blip.tv/file/1272900 part 1
    http://blip.tv/file/1273564 part 2

    I just watched this today and thought it was very good.This is the first time i've seen a video look at the media coverage like this. Very well made.
    What are your thoughts?

    where did you find this video? I regularly watch films on this subject but have never heard of it before. Would love to know more about it

    Thanks


  • #21
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,424 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Having watched the Videos im not convinced by all out it and neither would I rule out some of the situations either.

    I do believe that planes were used to destroy both towers. Problem being really which types of plane were used which have to say is excellent featured in the 2 parts of video.

    There are some instances where I think we looking too deep for wrong doing on the broadcaster part but again the likes of the angles of attack of the plane hitting the second tower cannot be ignored one bit.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Before We start

    Have you Watched the Video we are discussing Meglome?

    That video is a bucket of poo, finished watching the first one. It's obvious there are other explanations for most of the stuff in it. And some of his 'facts' are very dubious to say the least.

    If we were to watch this video in isolation we might wonder. But seeing as many thousands of people saw at least one of the planes I can't imagine what exactly his point is. What is he trying to say?

    So how many people do you think were involved in 911?


  • #23
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,424 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    I do think the film does go on too much and that it could have being only half that long and points come across just as clear.

    Would say though that I did find it interesting that in some cameras shows parts of buildings missing while othere did not etc..Also the bridge in backgound etc there no getting away from it you have to say.


  • #24
    lol5605
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 178 ✭✭lol5605


    Net is sh1t atm so cant watch but have watched a good bit of thr 1st park, just wondering do they say anything about what they did with the hijacked planes?


  • #25
    JonathanAnon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,718 ✭✭✭✭JonathanAnon


    This is probably the least convincing of the 9/11 documentaries, effectively saying the news media "Photoshopped" the whole event. Documentaries like this set back the search for truth, because it makes everyone in the truth movement get lumped in with Jim Corr.

    If you are trying to get people on board with the fact that everything is not as it seems with 9/11, then you have to focus on the irrefutable facts.

    a) Building 7 - none of the Americans organisations NIST, FEMA etc could give a reason why it collapsed. Why are we still building with steel if another steel building could spontaneously collapse from a small fire?

    b) Pentagon - A plane simply could not have hit the pentagon, it does not fit. There should be the marks of the two 6 tonne engines at least. If someone can show me legitimate CCTV footage of a plane hitting the building, then I am willing to believe. As a supplemental point to this, how did supposed pilot Hani Hanjour carry out the 270 degree turn and fly the plane at 6 metres above the ground.

    c) Molten Metal - Existence of molten metal in the basement of towers. How could they have existed when supposedly there was nothing in the building that was capable of being heated to such high temperatures, even in perfect conditions. Also, how come the only three steel buildings in history to collapse because of fire all happened on the same day. (NB. One of which was hit by nothing at all). Was this the biggest coincidence in construction history?

    I am not a conspiracy nut, if someone can give me adequate answers to the above questions (and a few others), I would be happy to believe.


  • #26
    happyoutish
    Registered Users Posts: 227 ✭✭happyoutish


    Any of you watch loosechange911??

    www.loosechange911.com

    Judge for yourself :D

    I personally think the whole thing was an "inside job" :mad:


  • #27
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,211 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    a) Building 7 - none of the Americans organisations NIST, FEMA etc could give a reason why it collapsed. Why are we still building with steel if another steel building could spontaneously collapse from a small fire?

    NIST did give a reason. The structural flaw in the design of the building coupled with the damage done by falling debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers and the fire which weakened the steel. It's in the official report.

    And the steel building did not spontaneously collapse from a small fire. A key structural member was weaked by prolonged exposure to a fire. The building burned for approx 7 hours IIRC. Hardly "spontaneous".
    b) Pentagon - A plane simply could not have hit the pentagon, it does not fit. There should be the marks of the two 6 tonne engines at least. If someone can show me legitimate CCTV footage of a plane hitting the building, then I am willing to believe. As a supplemental point to this, how did supposed pilot Hani Hanjour carry out the 270 degree turn and fly the plane at 6 metres above the ground.

    I'm not going to answer this one as I don't know enough about it to have an informed response.
    c) Molten Metal - Existence of molten metal in the basement of towers. How could they have existed when supposedly there was nothing in the building that was capable of being heated to such high temperatures, even in perfect conditions. Also, how come the only three steel buildings in history to collapse because of fire all happened on the same day. (NB. One of which was hit by nothing at all). Was this the biggest coincidence in construction history?

    I don't know about the molten metal, but as has been said numerous times on this forum, they are not the first steel frame buildings to collapse due to fire. Other steel frame buildings have collapsed solely due to fire, as fire protection around steel is only designed to last for a certain period of time (depending on the size, scale, location, occupancy of the building). Not only that, but the fire wasn't the sole reason they collapsed. If you damage part of a steel frame, it places additional loading and forces on the other beams/columns, which they were not designed to take. Plus the fact that these overloaded steel members were also subjected to fire which weakened them further. And Building 7 was hit by something, falling debris from the other towers. Other buildings in the area also had to be tore down due to the damage sustained by the falling debris and vibrations in the ground.
    I am not a conspiracy nut, if someone can give me adequate answers to the above questions (and a few others), I would be happy to believe.

    Like I said, there were a few parts of your questions I couldn't answer. Anything I said on those would purely be guesswork and opinions. I hope I've answered the others sufficiently.


  • #28
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    This is probably the least convincing of the 9/11 documentaries, effectively saying the news media "Photoshopped" the whole event. Documentaries like this set back the search for truth, because it makes everyone in the truth movement get lumped in with Jim Corr.

    Well we agree on that at least.
    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    If you are trying to get people on board with the fact that everything is not as it seems with 9/11, then you have to focus on the irrefutable facts.

    I agree but I fear myself and others are going to explain to you that your 'facts' are not facts at all.
    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    a) Building 7 - none of the Americans organisations NIST, FEMA etc could give a reason why it collapsed. Why are we still building with steel if another steel building could spontaneously collapse from a small fire?

    They say due to the design of the building fire alone was able to bring the building down. So many people gloss over the fact the WTC7 had a very unique design and some design flaws as it turned out. And steel buildings do collapse from fire which is why they all have fire proofing on the steel. How many are designed to withstand an impact from an 757 jet? How many are designed to be left to burn?

    With the Windsor building in Madrid all the steel parts of the building collapsed from fire alone with only the concrete bit left standing. And it even had the standard cube in a cube design that most steel buildings have.
    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    b) Pentagon - A plane simply could not have hit the pentagon, it does not fit. There should be the marks of the two 6 tonne engines at least. If someone can show me legitimate CCTV footage of a plane hitting the building, then I am willing to believe. As a supplemental point to this, how did supposed pilot Hani Hanjour carry out the 270 degree turn and fly the plane at 6 metres above the ground.

    Should, could, must etc etc. First thing we need to do if ask why so many people clearly saw a plane hit the pentagon. There are something like 123 eye-witness reports of people who directly saw a plane. There is damage to lampposts directly where the eye-witnesses saw a plane, the plane flew low directly over a major highway next to the Pentagon. We'd have to ask ourselves who in their right minds would try to fake this plane crash on one of the biggest buildings in the world, next to a busy highway, in broad daylight, in a big city?

    All discussed in detail here. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055532869
    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    c) Molten Metal - Existence of molten metal in the basement of towers. How could they have existed when supposedly there was nothing in the building that was capable of being heated to such high temperatures, even in perfect conditions. Also, how come the only three steel buildings in history to collapse because of fire all happened on the same day. (NB. One of which was hit by nothing at all). Was this the biggest coincidence in construction history?

    Have you got more information on molten metal?

    Imagine three buildings with a very similar design collapsing after being struck by a plane and/or left to burn. It's a very good point though, how many other buildings with this design (cone in a cone, the size of the floor brackets etc) have collapsed in this way? Well none as far as I know. Of course there are no other building with this exact design so there is no way to make any comparisons in the first place. If you want to compare apples and oranges I'll be the first to agree with you that they are not the same.
    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    I am not a conspiracy nut, if someone can give me adequate answers to the above questions (and a few others), I would be happy to believe.

    We'll read what people have to say in that thread I linked to above and come back to us.


  • #29
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    I am not a conspiracy nut, if someone can give me adequate answers to the above questions (and a few others), I would be happy to believe.

    Can you list the "few others" too?


  • #30
    DubTony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,267 ✭✭✭DubTony


    Diogenes wrote: »
    Yes, yes I have. I've also spent a decade working in video post production, I could point about the dozens of factual inaccuracies in the technical aspects of the claims of the film but the absolute incontroversial flaw in the film's idiocy is that it suggests the whole thing happened IN BROAD DAYLIGHT IN FRONT OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE

    Leaving the "incontroversial flaw" aside, and based on your knowledge of video post production, can you explain the inaccuracies in the technical aspects. He seems to use the (I can't remember what he called them) "edges" as proof that the video was altered. Moving bridges is another. Similar camera angles effectively showing different descents of the plane. A helicopter seemingly disappearing into thin air and seen on some camera angles and not on others.

    I think this No Plane theory is a load of bunkum personally, but to a guy who knows nothing about the technical side of all this, any insight would be very welcome.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    polishpaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 377 ✭✭polishpaddy


    Since i posted this it has got a great amount of interesting posts.
    Im on
    http://web.archive.org/web/20010911211010/www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.html
    looking at footage and seeing if what he says in this video is real or not.
    But then again maybe the web.archive site is dodgy ;)


  • #32
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    DubTony wrote: »
    Leaving the "incontroversial flaw" aside, and based on your knowledge of video post production, can you explain the inaccuracies in the technical aspects.

    Although I haven't seen the video, can't watch it where I currently am, amn't a video expert and haven't worked in the industry, I'm going to take a stab at answering some of the questions.
    He seems to use the (I can't remember what he called them) "edges" as proof that the video was altered.

    The first thing I'd ask is what sources the guy is working from.

    Most of thse youtube productions tend to take the publically-available internet footage as their source. I've yet to see one where the author claims to have access to original-definition footage and makes high-quality (i.e. broadcast quality or higher) copies available.

    SO when someone starts on about video analysis, I'm immediately cautious as to what, exactly, they've analysed. If they're working from the internet versions, then it is somewhat equivalent to analysing a fax and arguing that because you can see pixellation or blurry edges, the signature on it has been altered. Of course its been altered...its been digitally scanned using a lossy algorithm.

    If you've ever tried using a program to re-encode DVD or handycam content to another format, you've probably encountered this yourself. Detail is lost. Some stuff looks perfect, and then suddenly some line has a "shadow",
    Moving bridges is another.
    Not sure what you mean here...I'd probably need to watch the video. If we'r etalking about physical bridges (that one uses to cross water) appearing to move up/down (i.e. vibrating), I'd go with it being a compression artefact. If you mean physical bridges appearing to be in different locations in "similar" camera angles, I'd argue that its evidence that the angles aren't as similar as they appear and that this is misdirection to get around that.

    If its some sort of technical term, and not physical bridges at all, then I'ignore what Ive just written.
    Similar camera angles effectively showing different descents of the plane.
    How "similar" are these angles?

    The reason I'm asking....in some movies you see a shot where the central image stays stationary (typically an actor's face) while the entire scenery seems to "zoom" around them. This is done by the camera being rushed towards or away from the actos, with the focus and zoom being adjusted in synch so that the actor's face remains the same, whilst everything else changes dramatically.

    My guess is that two cameras could be in similar positions, but different field of vision and zoom would create different effects as an object moved through the depth of the picture. Similarly, two cameras could produce images which look similar in terms of individual landmarks (like the tower the plane hits) despite being in significantly different locations). Here, movement through any dimensions (height, width and depth) will behave differently.
    A helicopter seemingly disappearing into thin air and seen on some camera angles and not on others.
    Here, again, I'd need to see the exact footage, but my guess would be that it is again going to be explained by the same two notions I've put forward...that apparently-similar camera angles aren't really as similar as one might think, and that image-compression could well cause an object to disappear. I know I've taken photo's with a digital camera where jets flying overhead weren't visible because they were smaller than would register on the resolution.
    I think this No Plane theory is a load of bunkum personally, but to a guy who knows nothing about the technical side of all this, any insight would be very welcome.

    For the record, the experience I'm using for my critique is as follows:

    1) My current efforts to put my DVD collection onto disk, in preparation to having it all to something like a Popcorn Hour or Apple TV box.
    2) Digital photography
    3) The occasional "How does Hollywood do that" show I can recall seeing in my youth
    4) A passing knowledge of 3-dimensional vector handling, from my background in mathematics.


  • #33
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    DubTony wrote: »
    Leaving the "incontroversial flaw" aside, and based on your knowledge of video post production, can you explain the inaccuracies in the technical aspects. He seems to use the (I can't remember what he called them) "edges" as proof that the video was altered. Moving bridges is another. Similar camera angles effectively showing different descents of the plane. A helicopter seemingly disappearing into thin air and seen on some camera angles and not on others.

    I think this No Plane theory is a load of bunkum personally, but to a guy who knows nothing about the technical side of all this, any insight would be very welcome.


    One of the "leading" minds behind this theory is Ace Baker. I've spoken to him online, and he admits he hasn't got access to the original source footage. NTSC runs at 525 lines of information a frame, running at approx 29.97 frames a second, you tube videos don't contain nearly that much information. The very act of putting it on youtube will mean that visual information will be lost, and blurred.

    The 2nd problem is that real time compositing software didn't exist in 2001.

    Furthermore, the uncompressed footage has been watched by tens of thousands of video editing experts in edit suites around the globe, while making news reports and documentaries.

    Finally



    Here's a hollywood visual effects artist explaining just how dumb this theory is.







    PS. Mahatma you've obviously been on this thread since we last spoke, how's finding those ten witnesses who claim to have seen a missile working out for ya?


  • #34
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    bumpage for Meglome

    this is the video I was discussin in the Other thread, te questions are here about a page back in some more detail

    AAAAAAANYWAY

    I'll seee if I can find a still of te bit I was talkin about later and I'll post that in the other thread aas that's where the main discussion is goin on


  • #35
    philiy
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭philiy


    Did anyone see the footage of the presidents aircraft being followed by a jet fighter flying around Manhatten over the last few days?

    That plane is a modified Boeing 747 with a wingspan of approx 60m and a lenght of approx 70m.

    The planes that hit the twin towers where Boeing 767s with approx wingspan of 48m and a lenght of 55m

    Not a huge difference in size between the two. The 767 is maybe 3/4 the size of a 747. But in the video of the 747 flying around new york it looked huge compared to the videos of the 767s flying into the twin towers. The 767s in the 911 videos look to be 1/2 to 1/4 the size of a 747.

    Just thought i wud bring this up


  • #36
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I think that's just a case of it being closer. Even the jet fighter looks huge in the footage.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    philiy
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭philiy


    Footage of the presidential aircraft from what looks to be on Manhatten Island while the aircraft flies over the Hudson. I dont think there is much difference in distances while this was being filmed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3HhZlVrgo&feature=related


  • #38
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philiy wrote: »
    Footage of the presidential aircraft from what looks to be on Manhatten Island while the aircraft flies over the Hudson. I dont think there is much difference in distances while this was being filmed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3HhZlVrgo&feature=related
    Most of the time there's no buildings to compare is size to and it seems to be zoomed in pretty far making it more difficult to judge it's size.
    But doesn't look out of the ordinary to me.


Advertisement