Not another 911 thread

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.

bytey

christ - ive never seen that helicopter vid before
but thats a serious indicator of shenanigans right there .

fcukin wow is all i can say .

you can see the 'cockpit' made it through intact
yet no cockpit paraded around / seen falling / crashed on the street / kept in evidence ?
with terrorist bodies inside - intact ?

faked, faked , faked

200% sure.

meglome

bytey wrote: »

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


pretty interesting stuff.

Now I didn't read the entire piece but all the 911 attackers had training. They didn't need to take-off or land, which I'm taking are the most difficult things to do. Mythbusters did an episode where they were able to land a jet in a simulator without any training, by being talked down over the radio.

bad2dabone

as crazy as i think many conspiracy theories are, there's no way in hell i'd believe the official version of events.

was.deevey

According to alot of research both the 9/11 twin tower planes were well above an almost uncontrollable "break-up" dive speed, this is without even factoring in the G's that would have been encountered during the turns that were made.

Unexperienced "pilots" somehow managed to keep the planes in a non-straight-line, non-diving, right-on-target flightpath.

Many, Many experienced pilots have tried and failed to re-create what 2 sets of unexperienced terrorists managed to do accurately at these speeds and turning radius.

Google is your friend if you want more info on the break up speeds / G's on the planes involved... its interesting reading.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:


A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Di0genes

was.deevey wrote: »

According to alot of research both the 9/11 twin tower planes were well above an almost uncontrollable "break-up" dive speed, this is without even factoring in the G's that would have been encountered during the turns that were made.

Unexperienced "pilots" somehow managed to keep the planes in a non-straight-line, non-diving, right-on-target flightpath.

Many, Many experienced pilots have tried and failed to re-create what 2 sets of unexperienced terrorists managed to do accurately at these speeds and turning radius.

Google is your friend if you want more info on the break up speeds / G's on the planes involved... its interesting reading.

Tragically for you, Rob Baslamo is a nutcase and is grounded with a revoked pilots licence.

alastair

How about a nice card-carrying CT advocate debunking this whole 'cgi trickery' business?

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

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

Tragically for you, Rob Baslamo is a nutcase and is grounded with a revoked pilots licence.

Mr. Ad Hominem strikes again!

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

Mr. Ad Hominem strikes again!

Or if you'd like the scientific explanation for why nutjob Baslamo is wrong:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

nullzero

9-11 is something that we'll never know the exact truth about.
For every piece of information that makes the official version look like it's true something else makes it look stupid (passports floating to the ground at the WTC anybody?).

This is a subject that is down to the individual to decide on for themselves.
Not only that it's been done to death on this forum already.

I have my opinions, and I'm open to them being changed by evidence, but I think it's important to respect others rights to not agree with me on all topics, but especially with regard to a topic such as this.

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

9-11 is something that we'll never know the exact truth about.
For every piece of information that makes the official version look like it's true something else makes it look stupid (passports floating to the ground at the WTC anybody?).

I have my opinions, and I'm open to them being changed by evidence, but I think it's important to respect others rights to not agree with me on all topics, but especially with regard to a topic such as this.

How about the fact the passport wasn't the only personal effect from a passenger found that day?