Not another 911 thread

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 04:42PM

alastair wrote: »

Because someone edited it out? Because it's a cruddy lo-res video from an unknown source and unknown generation? Why not ask the explanation for the visible plane in the first clip? The unedited live streams from CBS, CNN, and NBC are available to view on archive.org in somewhat better quality than either of thse clips (I posted the link earlier). The plane is visible in those. As indeed the plane was visible to people on the ground - some of whom videoed and photographed the plane - here's another link to mull over: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175

Wrong. It is from the archives. The plane is not visible in them all.

911 myths your bible ?

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 04:45PM

King Mob wrote: »

**** compression probably.

But lets get this straight. you're claiming that they somehow added in an image into a live feed only to then cut away before the plane hits, then remove said image from subsequent showings?
Why does this make sense to you?

Jeez dude. Dont you listen to anything ?

Watch it this time or get off the thread.

How do you expect to debate this when you ignore 50% of the information put forward ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXda5Kn2LAM

16-08-2010 04:48PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Jeez dude. Dont you listen to anything ?

Watch it this time or get off the thread.

How do you expect to debate this when you ignore 50% of the information put forward ??

Because I'm not arsed to waste the time and bandwidth with more examples of people failing to identify video compression and drawing ridiculous conclusions from it.

Why not just explain it in a few words?

If we just kept linking you a video over and over again we wouldn't hear the end of it.

alastair · 16-08-2010 04:53PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Wrong. It is from the archives. The plane is not visible in them all.

911 myths your bible ?

Neither of those videos is from archive.org - which has the original/as broadcast footage - in quality better than either of those youtube vids (which again - you don't know the source of).

The videos on 911 myths are labeled with their sources - take up any problems with the video originators.

Bog Warrior · 16-08-2010 05:08PM

King Mob wrote: »

Let's take an example.

Now can you please show me the difference between this statement which I've just made up is any way different from yours?

Unbelievable! They should have taught you this in school

hear·say –noun 1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.

fab·ri·ca·tion –noun 2.
something fabricated, esp. an untruthful statement: His account of the robbery is a complete fabrication.

I am finished discussing this with you.

16-08-2010 05:18PM

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Unbelievable! They should have taught you this in school

hear·say –noun 1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.

fab·ri·ca·tion –noun 2.
something fabricated, esp. an untruthful statement: His account of the robbery is a complete fabrication.

I am finished discussing this with you.

Now you see you provided nothing to support your "hearsay" not even the video you claim to have seen, let alone any of the facts you claim it has.
I likewise provided nothing to support my statement.
So to an outside observer it is indistinguishable from making stuff up.

And so rather than address my points, answer my questions or at the very least post the video you claimed to have seen, you instead decide to engage in pedantry, then get in a huff about engaging said pedantry.

So really you first refused to discuss with me back when you ignored my points...

Bog Warrior · 16-08-2010 05:25PM

King Mob wrote: »

Now you see you provided nothing to support your "hearsay" not even the video you claim to have seen, let alone any of the facts you claim it has.
I likewise provided nothing to support my statement.
So to an outside observer it is indistinguishable from making stuff up.

And so rather than address my points, answer my questions or at the very least post the video you claimed to have seen, you instead decide to engage in pedantry, then get in a huff about engaging said pedantry.

So really you first refused to discuss with me back when you ignored my points...

I shared the info I saw in a video, you can look into that and research it if you want to, as I said. You dragged me into the pedantry, I am dragging myself out.

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 05:27PM

alastair wrote: »

Neither of those videos is from archive.org - which has the original/as broadcast footage - in quality better than either of those youtube vids (which again - you don't know the source of).

The videos on 911 myths are labeled with their sources - take up any problems with the video originators.

Here is the first clip you say is not on archive.org @ 31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

Here is CNN recorded live tv with missing Frames (fade to black). Unfortunate timing @ 14:50
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 05:32PM

Bog Warrior wrote: »

I shared the info I saw in a video, you can look into that and research it if you want to, as I said. You dragged me into the pedantry, I am dragging myself out.

King Mob cant afford to waste his time or bandwidth on evidence. It's pointless debating with him.

16-08-2010 05:40PM

Bog Warrior wrote: »

I shared the info I saw in a video, you can look into that and research it if you want to, as I said. You dragged me into the pedantry, I am dragging myself out.

So I can take that as a no on addressing my points?

16-08-2010 05:43PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

King Mob cant afford to waste his time or bandwidth on evidence. It's pointless debating with him.

Or you could point out exactly how and when your video addresses any of my questions?
I mean if it's irrefutable and all why is that so hard for you to do?

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 05:44PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is the first clip you say is not on archive.org @ 31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

Here is CNN recorded live tv with missing Frames (fade to black). Unfortunate timing @ 14:50
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

Here is the second clip you stated is not on archive.com

No plane @ 33:00
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

alastair · 16-08-2010 05:49PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is the first clip you say is not on archive.org @ 31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

I posted a link to this earlier - higher quality than your clips and, yep, approaching plane visible.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is CNN recorded live tv with missing Frames (fade to black). Unfortunate timing @ 14:50
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

And what's that we see there too? Surely not a plane!?

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 05:56PM

Again

Play simultaneously.

One has a plane, one does not. Same time, same angle. Both on archive.org

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

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

The argument was, these are from an unknown source.

Here are the sources, from archive.org - recommended by a skeppie.

Plane at @31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

No plane @ 40:00
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

alastair · 16-08-2010 05:56PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is the second clip you stated is not on archive.com

Eh? I said the two clips you posted weren't from archive.org - which they were not. And that the live footage at archive.org showed the plane, which they do.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No plane @ 33:00
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

Given that the plane hits at 14:56, nope.

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 06:00PM

alastair wrote: »

Eh? I said the two clips you posted weren't from archive.org - which they were not. And that the live footage at archive.org showed the plane, which they do.

Given that the plane hits at 14:56, nope.

is there something wrong with you ?

Again

Play simultaneously.

One has a plane, one does not. Same time, same angle. Both on archive.org

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

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

The argument was, these are from an unknown source.

Here are the sources, from archive.org - recommended by a skeppie.

Plane at @31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

No plane @ 40:00
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

alastair · 16-08-2010 06:03PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No plane @ 40:00
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

Ehh - aside from the plane that's visible? (40:05)

Like I say - the unedited archive.org footage shows the plane.

alastair · 16-08-2010 06:04PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here are the sources, from archive.org - recommended by a skeppie.

Plane at @31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

No plane @ 40:00
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

Plane visible in both. Observation fail! :P
Also note that these are different vids, and better quality than those in the thread (which are not from archive.org).

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 06:04PM

alastair wrote: »

Ehh - aside from the plane that's visible? (40:05)

Like I say - the unedited archive.org footage shows the plane.

No plane here @ 40:00
Just an explosion

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

thecommander · 16-08-2010 06:08PM

So let just say for the craic that there was no plane in the video. Are the video editors, CG artists, news staff, reporters, researchers, cameramen in on this aswell?

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 06:08PM

Incidentally, The sky in that footage is white/grey. Whereas in this it is vibrant blue...
Could it be the same day ? same sky ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8

16-08-2010 06:09PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No plane here @ 40:00
Just an explosion

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

The plane is clearly visible. @ 40:07 Just as the feed changes.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Incidentally, The sky in that footage is white/grey. Whereas in this it is vibrant blue...
Could it be the same day ? same sky ?

Different camera at a different angle with different lighting conditions.

What do you suggest it is? That they built a full scale model of the towers to blow up?

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 06:11PM

thecommander wrote: »

So let just say for the craic that there was no plane in the video. Are the video editors, CG artists, news staff, reporters, researchers, cameramen in on this aswell?

It would appear that the folks on the phone are in on it. Many of the reporters didn't see planes, just explosions (they repeat what they are told). It's the folks on the phones who mention planes.

thecommander · 16-08-2010 06:12PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It would appear that the folks on the phone are in on it. Many of the reporters didn't see planes, just explosions. It's the folks on the phones who mention planes.

So they're in on it too?

What about all the eyewitnesses who saw it too? Are they in on it?

alastair · 16-08-2010 06:13PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No plane here @ 40:00
Just an explosion

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

Look again. At 40:00 there's the end of the impact from the first replay of the plane hitting (with a visible plane, natch), then there's a cut to the replay of the plane approaching from the helicopter shot at 40:06 - where the approaching plane is visible, flies behind building, and then explodes out the front.

I can see it, and I'm pretty sure anyone else can.

Di0genes · 16-08-2010 06:15PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Incidentally, The sky in that footage is white/grey. Whereas in this it is vibrant blue...
Could it be the same day ? same sky ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8

Different cameras with different calibrated colour balances.

This is just desperate

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 06:20PM

thecommander wrote: »

So they're in on it too?

What about all the eyewitnesses who saw it too? Are they in on it?

very few eyewitnesses stated they saw a plane crash into the building. They saw a small plane, they saw an explosion.
Some planted folk shouted "a plane crashed into the building".
Other folk copied them, then everyone was shouting it...
People convinced themselves they saw it happening. Liars on the new backed it up etc etc
It's a clever trick, very clever

alastair · 16-08-2010 06:21PM

So what have we learned?

All the live unedited TV broadcasts showed the plane approaching the building, followed by a big explosion and a hole in the building. Now common sense might dictate a connection between the two, as would evidence of bits of said plane scattered all over the place, but seemingly it was a fraud perpetrated by some people on the phone duping new anchors.

TalkieWalkie · 16-08-2010 06:23PM

Di0genes wrote: »

Different cameras with different calibrated colour balances.

This is just desperate

Diogenie to the rescue. He stays quiet until a video camera question arises. The whole world knows by now you know about video cameras lmfao. But it stops there.

alastair · 16-08-2010 06:24PM

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

very few eyewitnesses stated they saw a plane crash into the building. They saw a small plane, they saw an explosion.
Some planted folk shouted "a plane crashed into the building".
Other folk copied them, then everyone was shouting it...
People convinced themselves they saw it happening. Liars on the new backed it up etc etc
It's a clever trick, very clever

Check out the trickery:

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

Not another 911 thread

Comments