Not another 911 thread

TalkieWalkie

Some pretty groovy new evidence regarding the twins on 911, This ties in several different theories. Pretty good watch for all Bout 22 mins total

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFIGeINof0Y

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEpXAYwVIo

Lunatic..



*I'd just like to point out that this was aimed at the dude in the video..Not talkie walkie..Apologies if i should have lcarified..

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Some pretty groovy new evidence regarding the twins on 911, This ties in several different theories. Pretty good watch for all Bout 22 mins total

Yes because groovy and non groovy is the yardstick between credible and nonsensical evidence.

Incidentally the author of this idiotic video isn't able to explain how he can extrapolate 3-D models from a 2D image, without knowledge of the distance, lens type, focal range, f stop or any of the other things a video forensic expert would use.

nullzero

Isn't there a youtube thread for this forum where we could post this sort of stuff without having to listen to the self righteous crap thats already building up here?

WakeUp

Deleted User wrote: »

Lunatic..

What do you make of the ball thing?

WakeUp

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes because groovy and non groovy is the yardstick between credible and nonsensical evidence.

Incidentally the author of this idiotic video isn't able to explain how he can extrapolate 3-D models from a 2D image, without knowledge of the distance, lens type, focal range, f stop or any of the other things a video forensic expert would use.

What do you make of the ball thing?

In fairness, im all for a good conspiracy theory, but this is just horsesh1t..all tv footage was edited to put planes in to hide this magic ball that was fired from the sun..come on..

WakeUp

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, im all for a good conspiracy theory, but this is just horsesh1t..all tv footage was edited to put planes in to hide this magic ball that was fired from the sun..come on..

Im not saying I believe this man either but I do find that ball thing fairly interesting I mean what is it? It doesnt appear to have wings well from what I can see anyways begs the question then what exactly is it.

Di0genes

WakeUp wrote: »

What do you make of the ball thing?

I've a decade of experience working in video and film post production, including working in both live news and cgi effects, and this is profound utter bull****.

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

I've a decade of experience working in video and film post production, including working in both live news and cgi effects, and this is profound utter bull****.

We'll take your word for it.
Good to know your passionate about your work.

WakeUp

Di0genes wrote: »

I've a decade of experience working in video and film post production, including working in both live news and cgi effects, and this is profound utter bull****.

How do you mean? Are you saying that someone doctored the video to insert this ball thing into it?

Well didn't he say he tampered with the focus..could it be the plane coming in out of focus, and perhaps at a different angle?..i dunno..everything else was edited to make people think twas planes?..what about all the hoo-hah about the control device on the bottom of the plane..it destroys a lot of the more reasonable conspiracy theories..

uprising2

I haven't 22 mins to watch the video's now, all I'll say is video's are easily manipulated.

I will watch it later and give my honest opinion, I know a bit about photography/film and video's can be multi layered in software, I say this because of the 3D mentioned.

If anybody can point me to this ball time I'll take a quick look and reply.

But anyway, if it's faked or not, it wont change my views of who and what did 9/11.

WakeUp

uprising2 wrote: »

I haven't 22 mins to watch the video's now, all I'll say is video's are easily manipulated.

I will watch it later and give my honest opinion, I know a bit about photography/film and video's can be multi layered in software, I say this because of the 3D mentioned.

If anybody can point me to this ball time I'll take a quick look and reply.

But anyway, if it's faked or not, it wont change my views of who and what did 9/11.

It is toward the end of the first video maybe 6 mins in or so think that is when this mysterious ball thing appears.

WakeUp

Deleted User wrote: »

Well didn't he say he tampered with the focus..could it be the plane coming in out of focus, and perhaps at a different angle?..i dunno..everything else was edited to make people think twas planes?..what about all the hoo-hah about the control device on the bottom of the plane..it destroys a lot of the more reasonable conspiracy theories..

To be honest to me it doesnt look like a plane in focus , out of focus or coming into focus I havent a clue what it is, but I cant see any wings it looks like a ball of some description, this is the first time I have ever seen any footage of it which is why I find it so interesting.

Well, maybe, but trying to explain away the plane at the end was just ridiculous..
I dunno..see my reaction in my 1st post..

uprising2

I watched the last 5 mins of it, I don't buy it, did he say it was from nbc, I know nbc have different regions etc, but anybody wanting to look further into this, have a look at this, live from nbc on 9/11, if anybody watches it tell me if you can still see the ball.

http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

This hasn't changed my view of 9/11, just from what I saw "the ball" is easily doable as there are area's to clone from in each frame, a tomahawk could be put there do a loop and hit the tower, ask digme, think he's more into moving images and knows a bit.

TalkieWalkie

uprising2 wrote: »

I watched the last 5 mins of it, I don't buy it, did he say it was from nbc, I know nbc have different regions etc, but anybody wanting to look further into this, have a look at this, live from nbc on 9/11, if anybody watches it tell me if you can still see the ball.

http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

There is a ball in that NBC footage @ 31:50

Just prior to the strike they change camera view for the first time... strange

Also, the "reporter" on the phone says "what looked like a 747 just flew past my window." We can clearly see that the "plane" flew past no windows.. She's fu**in lying

Black Swan

New and Improved 911 CT Fictional Plot:

• Osama bin Laden secretly orders Al-Qaeda to conduct hijacker training in friendly, Taliban controlled Afghanistan in preparation for 911, especially focusing on the use of team capture efforts using box cutters.
• Several of these trained Al-Qaeda hijackers enter US legally as students or visitors and take a few classes on in-flight procedures for commercial jets at a Florida flight school, not bothering to learn take-off or landing procedures.
• The FBI gets a tip from the flight school, becomes suspicious, does a superficial investigation, files a report with the new National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, but the newly elected (and incompetent) GW Bush administration is too busy changing the guard, replacing Democratic Clinton appointees with Republican Bush appointees (and the report gets lost in the bureaucratic shuffle).
• The planes are hijacked by Al-Qaeda teams with tanks just topped off with highly flammable aviation fuel as originally planned, crashing into the Twins and Pentagon, with only one failure crashing into a PA field when passengers challenge terrorists while inflight.
• The Twins pancake when the steel structures fail from crash impact and the high octane fuel fire. Osama bin Laden was planning a Tower spectacle that could be seen for miles, but was surprised when his show falls to Earth.
• Why? There's more to the story on the building failure, which drives CT advocates to propose that Al-Qaeda had help on the ground, or that the US or Israel governments were responsible, etc., etc., etc.; all bogus and used to cover-up something that happened years before, which had nothing to do with the later terrorist attack.
• Post-911 engineering studies are cited that claim that the Twins would not pancake, more than likely based upon the original building blueprints.
• But has anyone bothered to investigate if the builders may have made some last minute changes to the building designs, which may or may not have been issued by addendum to the plans, to save costs, increase profits, or hide faulty construction?
• What happened with the recent Gulf spill? BP allowed design cuts to be made when building the offshore rig saving $7.5 million (which does not seem like much, except when you take into account how many hundreds of offshore rigs BP builds times that $7.5 million each, that increases profits if no spill occurs).
• The Bush administration may have discovered the construction flaws from the investigation that followed 911, but it may not have been in the best interests of wealthy Twin investors to disclose construction building flaws that happened years before the 911 attack, which had nothing to do with the attack, but could have resulted in huge lawsuits?
• Makes for a grand fictional plot, of course with all the typical disclaimers occurring in this post suggesting that the buildings were in fact constructed perfectly and without error, and that this post is to be considered for entertainment purposes only, and not to be taken seriously.

/Blue auditions for the sequel to Conspiracy Theory, replacing Julia Roberts.

ive watched that nbc footage four times..i reckon it was the second plane swooping down in relation to the camera..a plane out of focus..

TalkieWalkie

Deleted User wrote: »

ive watched that nbc footage four times..i reckon it was the second plane swooping down in relation to the camera..a plane out of focus..

IMO, not a chance. You can clearly see a ball, not much bigger than the chopper that crossed that path seconds before..

uprising2

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

There is a ball in that NBC footage @ 31:50

Just prior to the strike they change camera view for the first time... strange

Also, the "reporter" on the phone says "what looked like a 747 just flew past my window." We can clearly see that the "plane" flew past no windows.. She's fu**in lying

Well it is the same view of the same thing, does look like a ball, so I don't know, actually I wasn't expecting to see it there, but did, I'm almost done with debating 9/11 it's been years now.

Here's more footage from different live feeds
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Have a browse and see if it is in any other, but fairplay Talkie

TalkieWalkie

uprising2 wrote: »

Well it is the same view of the same thing, does look like a ball, so I don't know, actually I wasn't expecting to see it there, but did, I'm almost done with debating 9/11 it's been years now.

Here's more footage from different live feeds
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Have a browse and see if it is in any other, but fairplay Talkie

Yeah I hear ya . But it is an interesting find, I;ll have a browse

Most suspicious thing to me is that reporter on the phone. First she seen it "a plane", went over her building, then she heard it, then it went past her window, then it's a 747 again... smells like bull to me..

Joshua Jones

A quadruple bluff then. God dam you pesky elites.


p.s they coulda given the wee lad a bigger chair.

TalkieWalkie

whatever indie.

At 33:00 they repeat the crash, same angle, same camera, zoomed in a little and there is no ball or plane :eek:

You can tell it's the same angle from the position of the boats and buildings etc... see for yourself from 30 mins to 33 mins.

during the nbc footage watch for the reflection from the sun youd expect to see on the top and wings of a plane in the middle of the mysterious ball..

Yitzhak Rabin

Its obviously either swamp gas, ball lightning or an image artefact.

Abelloid

WakeUp wrote: »

How do you mean? Are you saying that someone doctored the video to insert this ball thing into it?

Do you mean the jet?

fontanalis

So what's the ball suppsoed to be? So how many differnt "theories" does this make?

alastair

fontanalis wrote: »

So what's the ball suppsoed to be? So how many differnt "theories" does this make?

I think the answer is simple enough - behold the said mystery craft recorded at the scene of the crime:

TalkieWalkie

fontanalis wrote: »

So what's the ball suppsoed to be? So how many differnt "theories" does this make?

It states in the video what it is. Look, you can't make a good argument if you don't observe all the evidence, now go back and start again.

It can also be seen here in the original NBC footage @ 31.50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

I think the answer is simple enough - behold the said mystery craft recorded at the scene of the crime:

Trust you to come up with the "simple" answer. Thanks

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Trust you to come up with the "simple" answer. Thanks

You're welcome. I wouldn't like to see anyone waste their time with red herrings like launched spacehoppers and conveniently overlooked airliners.

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

You're welcome. I wouldn't like to see anyone waste their time with red herrings like launched spacehoppers and conveniently overlooked airliners.

But there is no airliner in the original footage

BlackWizard

The video is a bit strange alright

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

But there is no airliner in the original footage

I'm rather more persuaded by the thousands of eye witnesses, and the crash debris, of the actual airliner that hit the building. Regardless of what the 'stabalised' video might suggest to Mr Tinfoil.

WakeUp

JustinOval wrote: »

Do you mean the jet?

Nah I mean the ball thing was asking him does he think that the video has been doctored and somebody inserted the mysterious ball into a certain frame.

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

I'm rather more persuaded by the thousands of eye witnesses, and the crash debris, of the actual airliner that hit the building. Regardless of what the 'stabalised' video might suggest to Mr Tinfoil.

There are several videos posted around the forum focussing on "group conformity", how it works, how often it works. Group conformity works particularly well under stressful situations.
The reporter said there was a small plain circling the building, many people saw the plane, then an explosion, then no plane. It's a trick, nothing more. Derren Brown pulls this stuff all the time using subliminal. Place a few posters of planes around the area and half the job is done. All it would take is a few planted folk screaming "a plane hit the building" and thats the other half done.
So many people saw a plane (small), many saw an explosion bla bla bla your a big boy you now the rest..

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

There are several videos posted around the forum focussing on "group conformity", how it works, how often it works. Group conformity works particularly well under stressful situations.
The reporter said there was a small plain circling the building, many people saw the plane, then an explosion, then no plane. It's a trick, nothing more. Derren Brown pulls this stuff all the time using subliminal. Place a few posters of planes around the area and half the job is done. All it would take is a few planted folk screaming "a plane hit the building" and thats the other half done.
So many people saw a plane (small), many saw an explosion bla bla bla your a big boy you now the rest..

I can see group conformity any hour in CT cicles, if that was my interest.

Let's see the evidence of those who didn't have any 'subliminal media' at play on the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqo4oh-AzU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJig1wj7oLI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbCENOWUQMo&feature=channel

Honestly - you think that some idiot's 'anti-gravitation secret technology ball' theory is more plausible than the evidence of witnesses, radar, debris, and the death of the entire passenger roster? Okaaay.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=ua175

TalkieWalkie

You just believe what your told to believe alastair, no matter how much it stinks.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You just believe what your told to believe alastair, no matter how much it stinks.

You mean the 'super secret tech ball' story - nah - I'm not that gullible.

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You just believe what your told to believe alastair, no matter how much it stinks.

The ability to do high quality real time compositing with auto tracking is beyond Visual Effects companies in hollywood today.

Unless there's a military industrial light and magic thats more advance then the regular old industrial light and magic.

PirateShampoo

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You just believe what your told to believe alastair, no matter how much it stinks.

As opposed to what your telling him to believe?

alastair

Di0genes wrote: »

The ability to do high quality real time compositing with auto tracking is beyond Visual Effects companies in hollywood today.

Unless there's a military industrial light and magic thats more advance then the regular old industrial light and magic.

Strangely enough - some of the phone calls from United 175 did refer to super-high-tech Israeli compositing technology on board that appeared to do just that! But then they were spirited away by the conspirators who had to dub the 'screams' of bystanders in downtown NYC. It was a busy day for the old US-Israeli military-industrial-NWO-alien technology gang.

bonkey

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

But there is no airliner in the original footage

You have a link to the original footage? Can I have it please?

Note : by original, I don't mean that you have access to the actual recorded media, but rather to an uncompressed, copy of the footage, so that what we're getting is broadcast quality, rather than some woefully-compressed online version.

TalkieWalkie

Perhaps if you asked me on sept 12 I would be able to get that information. I had a quick look around, no luck.

Look here, original footage though woefully-compressed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JYkZXxsfk

Same footage, same angle, same camera, but it's doctored and doesn't cut to a close-up of the damage of the first hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60KPOhRgb2Q

alastair

Archive.org has fairly decent quality unedited live coverage from NBC:

http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

They've also got unedited CBS and CNN coverage streams.

The CBS stream shows (at 31:40) the approach of United 175, and it impacts the building 12/13 seconds later.

http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912

bonkey

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Perhaps if you asked me on sept 12 I would be able to get that information. I had a quick look around, no luck.

Then you'd agree that its wrong to say that we have original footage.

Look here, original footage though woefully-compressed

The point I'm making is that its incorrect to suggest that this woefully-compressed stuff is original footage, when we know the original was of a much higher quality.

Information is lost in compression. When dealing with video, visual information is lost. We all agree on this, I'm sure.

So we have something woefully compressed, and are looking at something small in the picture which has also been compressed....and trying to figure out what it is. "No wings" say people, "so its not a plane". Well sure...if we had the original footage we'd clearly see if there were wings or not...but with something this compressed...would we still expect to see wings? By "expect to" I don't mean "have a gut feeling we should", but rather "present a convincing argument"?

To me, that looks like an incoming plane, shown in a woefully compressed video. Going through it frame by frame, there appear to be visual distortions where I'd expect to see wings and a tail...but I might be imagining them....I (yet) haven't extracted single frames and look at them individually.

Here's the thing for me though....

This isn't the only footage. We've seen any amount of coverage, some of which undoubtedly shows a plane. So...if we're to believe its all doctored, then we accept that someone has managed to lay hands on every source of footage, and doctor them all. They've done a masterful job....except on this one piece, for some inexplicable reason. Maybe they just forgot one of the US' main news stations. They could cover handheld cameras, and even suppress every eye-witness account....but forgot a major news station.

Also...in the meantime...they haven't bothered to correct their mistake.

TalkieWalkie

This is it lads. No more beating around the bushes

10 minutes, take a look....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE

Bog Warrior

Great vids, watched them all.

I have believed for a long time that 9/11 was a fraud.
I never knew that the 17 sec delayed 'live' footage on the day was so inconsistent.

Now I am in no doubt that there was TV fakery going on that day.

bytey

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/


pretty interesting stuff.