• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Absolute proof of video fakery

I doubt the thing being "penciled in" is completely due to digital artifacts. It looks like it might have been shadow and smoke, that are poorly defined due to compression artifacting.

The parts of the video, from other sources, that are labeled "NO GASH TIP HERE" actually do have shadow and smoke in the same spot (mostly shadow). So, I don't see what the big deal is.
 
It is worth repeating...


The gash is in the other videos. I don't understand how this guy missed it. Do you want to know why he missed it. Because he was so busy looking to find evidence of fakery that he never comprehended the idea that shadows are perceived differently from different angles. Meaning the Naudat footage is from bellow catching the shadow where the face of the WTC was made uneven from damage, whereas the other footage is more straight on. Meaning the shadow in those shots isn't pronounced, but the damage is still visible if you actually look. Ironically he points to it while saying it isn't there.

How do you explain the way it appears when he loops it in greyscale?
 
And how does that black gashshadow from smoke propagate 15 seconds later?

fixed that for you. just watched a bunch of news feed footage from archive.org. you can see the shadow in some shots there cast from the billowing black smoke at the aircraft entry hole. The sun is to east (the left ) in all footage of the north face being that its after 8:46 in the morning.
 
I have the Naudet brothers DVD. The black "gash" is there on my copy.

I think the strangest thing about the whole sequence is the secondary explosion. There appears to be a period of time after the wing passes and before the explosion where there is no damage to the wall. It's really the same problem that CNN Ghostplane has.

First the right wing passes.

Then the secondary explosion occurs.

Then later there is a hole.

But a jet fuel explosion cannot break steel, we all agree on that.

Therefore the wing did not cause the hole, and the explosion included something besides hydrocarbons.

The black area does indeed look completely inconsistent with other videos.

Where I think I might disagree with the OP video is the characterization of the plane as "transparent" and so forth. I know Ace Baker has done work scaling model 767 airplanes into shots, and has concluded that the image in Naudet is just what a 767 would look like (whether real or animated).
 
How do you explain the way it appears when he loops it in greyscale?

Oh is that a grayscale filter? And here I thought it was the "conspiracy theory filter" the whole time.

An important question: what video editing software did he use?

WTF is with the no planers and their filters?
 
A real gash that is there in other videos, a digital artifact, a shadow, there you go mchapman, plenty of rational explanations you can research that don't involve a conspiracy.

You can also look further into your photoshop theory as well, if the video has been tampered with, experts will be able to see it.

Now go investigate, this is certainly not absolute proof of anything, except of your gullibility.
 
You can also look further into your photoshop theory as well, if the video has been tampered with, experts will be able to see it.

I'm fairly certain that mchapman would just claim the world's population of video analysis experts are somehow "in on it". He's already implicated the Naudet brothers, everyone involved in the production of the film, and of course, the FDNY.

Implicating video analysis experts is the next logical step, if the term "logical" could be applied to anything he does.
 
How do you explain the way it appears when he loops it in greyscale?
Oh you mean how the smoke spreads through the gash? You know smoke, which is dark. You know like dark things that would show up more in grey scale.

Again, if it was "photoshopped" in, you would be able to detect it by analyzing the uniformed pattern of pixels.
 
Last edited:
I think the strangest thing about the whole sequence is the secondary explosion. There appears to be a period of time after the wing passes and before the explosion where there is no damage to the wall.

How long does the entire sequence of events happen? A few seconds? How can you determine that this "second" explosion isn't the original blast that just expands?

What is the frame rate of a digital camera? Can the discrepancy be explained by the fact that digital cameras can only capture a few frames per second of an extremely fast moving object?

Could the fire be ignited a few micro-seconds after the impact? The sequence of events, again in micro- seconds, could be : impact, friction, ignition. Wouldn't this explain the delay between the plane being engulfed and the fireball?

And these are just a few explanations a layperson like me can think of off the top of my head that could explain this without involving a conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
Therefore the wing did not cause the hole, and the explosion included something besides hydrocarbons.
WRONG – were you really waiting for the dumbest video yet to expose how truthy and full of lies you are?

The wing does cause the hole. Sorry, but your lack of physics is not an excuse to post lies.

Pure lies. There is fuel in the wing going 470 mph, the wing breaks thought the shell of the WTC, the plane has over 1300 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. You forgot the engines are on the wing?

No there is no RDX or thermite. Sorry, but your failure is due to no ability to handle physics.

How can you post such a stupid statement?

11realdumbstuffagain.jpg

I see posts, I see post pushed in, truthers don't even understand this

no explosions caused the hole, a KE impact did. Got physics?

The wing did not do a great job of breeching the WTC, 175 will have a bigger impact, 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, vs. 11's 1300 pounds. But why mention energy you have no clue what it means. Or do you?
 
Last edited:
But a jet fuel explosion cannot break steel, we all agree on that.

What the hell do you mean by that? Break steel? Give me an example of "broken" steel on 9/11. Give me your scientific analysis which convinces me that "jet fuel" doesn't "break steel"...if you even know what broken steel is, which I doubt.

And please...puhleeeeeeeeese...don't presume to know what me and you agree upon...k?
 
When you get debunked by TheCrimsonSkull, that's when it's time to tap out.

youtube.com/watch?v=QFh2Ozb4cDg
 
"Absolute proof of video fakery'

I neglected to point out your thread title is in error. you may want to ask a mod to change it.. you and the video author have absolutely proven no such thing.


unloved I will fix that link for ya

 
Last edited:
How do you explain the way it appears when he loops it in greyscale?


Dude. Think about what you're saying here.

"Loops"

"Greyscale"


These are editing terms.

The Naudet brothers did not ever "loop" or "greyscale" their video.
 
mchapman, what's this?

[qimg]http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Pentagon_engine_photo350.jpg[/qimg]
 
Well a NTSC camera captures at a rate of 29.976 frames per second. A PAL camera is about 25 frames per second. A film camera would be close to 24 frames per second, close to PAL format actually.

Now compare this to high speed cameras used for the type of analysis that these people are wanting to do. The few high speed cameras I have seen will record at a rate of 5,400 frames per second. Meaning you can't do an accurate high speed analysis of an explosion with even the best off the shelf 3CCD NTSC/PAL system.
 
For starters the original video that Mchapman posted hand not been tampered with and or photoshoped. It is the original Naudet video and i come to that conclusion by simply comparing it to a few other Naudet posted videos. So atleast thats a credible start.

Here is an HD version of the video i will be using in my post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKyNl26s3ic&feature=related&fmt=18

As for the black line that was in question. Mchapman was correct when he stated it seems to appear out of nowhere 15 seconds after the initial impact, well actually its more like 12 seconds but im not holding you accountable for that because its irrelevant.

As for the rest of your post/ideas on the issue you seem a little off. Clearly without even having to inspect the videos im sure everyone here was well aware that the reason it seemingly appears "out of nowhere", is because of the dust and debris finally clearly after about 12 secounds.

As you will notice from watching your footage at around 18-19 secounds the amount of debris and smoke in the Air is drastically clouding any clear shot of the building. All detail is lost behind the smoke and truthfully you can only really make out the building outline and fire from the explosion.

At around 20 sec you will receive a shot of the towers from a distance that shows the fog and how much it is clouding the shot of the Camera.

Now at 23-24 secounds you receive your first glimpse of the mysterious black line appearing from behind the dust cloud. Now compare the screen shot at 20 secs to the one at 23-24 and notice the significant difference in color and visibility. This is because the debris and dust are finally starting to blow away and reveal the damage for the first time. This is where you notice your black line.

The funny thing about this black line is that it is actually a trick on the eyes which is more visible from a distance then upclose. (Yes weird) That is the reason for the close up in your video not showing the black line.
I came to this conclusion after watching several videos of people zooming in and out of the towers and noticing how when they zoomed out the line was clear as day, but when they zoomed in the line magically disappeared.
This is only true for the earliest shots of the towers. As the day progressed and the smoke became darker and more parts of the WTC began to pour smoke, the building does become scorched and the lines become more permanent and noticeable.

Shadows and lighting also seem to play a part of this line appearing darker and more prominent in different videos. Its all about the shot and the angle its taken from.
Dont believe me? Try and look for yourself.
 
Last edited:


If the fires were so hot, how could this lady be standing in the crux of the fires*...standing on a precipice, inches from death? The fires weren't so hot. Those people who jumped from the towers...they wanted to kill themselves anyway. Truthers...and I'm seriously asking this...could you be any more stupid? Could you?


*I mean, if I'm in a burning office building...and there are no fires...I'm standing as far away from the "drop of death" as possible. Two reasons. One, I don't get snared by "the drop of death." Two, I could be inside calling for help. Why is the lady standing on the precipice of death and not inside calling for help? Oh, that's right, because the fire wasn't that intense. That's right.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom