Absolute proof of video fakery

[JoeyDonuts]

The holographic image of airplanes was projected into the sky.

WHAT?!?! Tell me, kind sir, where might I get this wonderful technology that I may use it to watch pornography, play HALO, and orchestrate an enormous conspiracy?!?!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I stopped watching the video halfway in.

The author does the exact same thing we see in countless other twoofer vids. The footage is taken from so far out that the faces of the towers become solid, featureless, gray walls. You can't even make out the individual "strips" of aluminum cladding and windows.

"See how there was no damage caused by the wing..."

No... I can't. And neither can you or anyone. That information is simply not there. The resolution just isn't there. These people watch these vids and their minds make up for them the things they see.

 

[Mince]

The colour of the sky is green.

Is it teal or forest green? Jade or olive drab? These are important questions regarding the collapse of the towers, don't you know?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

This footage wasn't shown until the following day.

False

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Is it teal or forest green? Jade or olive drab? These are important questions regarding the collapse of the towers, don't you know?

On his planet? Probably nice and RED.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

False

I conceded to him that even IF it had aired the following day, then all of my points about a TV station conspiracy still applied.

Still waiting on a response.

 

[Baylor]

"Video fakery" is stupid, but September Clues deserves an Oscar compared to Loose Change.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Is it teal or forest green? Jade or olive drab? These are important questions regarding the collapse of the towers, don't you know?

Heh, because i'm colourblind, when it comes to green, brown, red(and others, but mostly those) i can, barely, destinguish between green and red.. There is no way on earth i could say if it was teal or forest green, or jade or olive drab, my eyes just aren't equpied to see that kind of information

With that said

The colour of the sky is brown..

I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

 

[OneShotKi11]

I conceded to him that even IF it had aired the following day, then all of my points about a TV station conspiracy still applied.

Still waiting on a response.

Thats called logical on point debate skills!
Conceding to the individual making the claim is definitely appropriate when the claim cannot hurt your argument what so ever....

 

[OneShotKi11]

Heh, because i'm colourblind, when it comes to green, brown, red(and others, but mostly those) i can, barely, destinguish between green and red.. There is no way on earth i could say if it was teal or forest green, or jade or olive drab, my eyes just aren't equpied to see that kind of information

With that said

The colour of the sky is brown..

I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

Well you have already stated your eyes are inaccurate with what they see, so asking another pair of more accurate eyes to translate for you would probably be your best option.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Thats called logical on point debate skills!
Conceding to the individual making the claim is definitely appropriate when the claim cannot hurt your argument what so ever....

Yes. I am more than willing to allow him to sidestep the bear trap because I know that he's still surrounded by Claymores....

....Excellent.

 

[Slayhamlet]

It's not a video artefact. It was captured by John F. Davis as well, as you can see in this close-up still taken immediately after the impact:



It's smoke, but its apparent thickness is exaggerated by the dark shadow cast about it.

You can download the high-res (compared to Youtube) version of the Naudet video here: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/200...f-the-911-hoax-free-911-documentary-downloads

The "secondary explosion" at 00:27 is actually the beginning of a large flare shooting out of the building after the impact, which is at first partially obscured by the huge fireball from the jet fuel that exploded outside the building. You can watch as the smoke remaining from the dissipating external fireball is pushed out by the massive flare, (and may even be partially reignited by it). What's noteworthy is that the flare is obviously coming out only from the area of the façade already punched out by the plane, the rightmost part of which was just barely visible before because of the shadow cast over it by the fireball, as well as the surrounding dust and smoke which further reduces visibility. The "secondary explosion" isn't increasing the size of the hole at all: the delayed flare is shooting out from the original impact hole, and it matches the hole exactly.

At about 00:33, as the flare settles back, the dark smudge begins to fill out. It is smoke accumulating in the shaded area just to the right of the impact hole where the flare couldn't escape from, and it makes a streak that matches the floor layout. Since it's set directly in the shadow it almost looks dark enough to be a continuation of the impact hole, but if you look closely it clearly isn't. The same effect appears above the flames that lick up and out from the impact hole, causing the hole to appear much taller than it really is.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

That's a pretty darned good and objective observation, Slayhamlet.

I think between the two of us, we may have put this poor dead horse in the ground for good. Unfortunately, this won't be enough for people who find it easier to wrap their heads around a mind-boggingly huge conspiracy than to accept that we were kicked in the collective national balls by a determined, intelligent, and patient adversary.

I guess it's on to the next pile of steaming conspiracy "proof."

Happy Trails.

 

[WildCat]

Noticed how he celebrated before the ball went in the stands? This means he knew in advance he had a home run.

Inside job!

And the final proof? No rookie has ever before hit 4 grand slams! And as we all know, it is impossible for something to happen for the first time ever!

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It also depends on how the author of the video got his material. I saw a downloaded version of "Lambs for Lions" the other day from Netflix, and it had many artifacts, little missing pixels in the image during the thransfer, including a shot when Robert Redford suddenly has a spooky reptilian eyes for a few frames.

Did it fake a good movie?

 

[chillzero]

Please make that the end of the slight sports derail.

Thanks.

 

[Mancman]

Until I saw this video I thought video fakery was ridiculous

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

but this video proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!

Wow, what an absolute trainwreck of insane gibberish that was.

Some thoughts.

Video maker points to 'top floor explosion'. Sorry, that's where the vent louvres were, it's just smoke going through the vents.

Video maker points to south side explosion and says 'approx 20 stories lower?'. No, sorry. That's called perspective.
See how the top of the south tower looks much lower than the top of the north tower? That's because it's further away from the viewpoint. The south side explosion is blasting out a fair distance south of the tower, hence is further away than the north side, so will look lower.
This is basic stuff.

Video maker points to a 'secondary explosion'. Nope. All I see is fire being excited by a considerable updraft of exploding fuel directly above it.

Video maker says 30% of the tower wall is intact after impact. Impossible claim, since most of what he claims as intact is in fact in the shadow of the explosion and too obscured to make any valid judgement.

Video maker points out the 'gash'. It's not a gash. It's just smoke! Plane hits building, releases fuel inside and ignites it, fuel spreads and starts burning. Fire creates smoke, smoke exits building. Do you follow?

Video maker than points us to news footage of the tower much later on, but fails to show other images shot at the same time, such as those posted above by Slayhamlet, which prove the 'gash' is nothing more than smoke from an early jet fuel fire which obviously died down later.

Conclusion: video maker is an insane idiot. Why are you wasting our time by posting this garbage? This is trash. Stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

So maybe it was a missile? Ahh, but which one? Most of the cruise missiles launched from aircraft or surface vessels are too small to be mistaken for an airplane by any reasonable person. Plus, the unitary 1000lb+ warheads these guys carry would have most likely blown the top of WTC clean off or just vaporized it. Wow...what cruise missile can we pick here that would lend the missile strike theory some credibility?

Oooh I got it!

That right there is the SM-64 Navaho. This was a intercontinental cruise missile project developed by North American Aviation between 1946 and 1958. It had an overall length of 67 feet and a wingspan of 28 feet. Though not as large as an airliner, this could possibly be mistaken at a distance and odd angle as an airliner! EUREKA!!!

Uhhh...Problem with that one, Archimedes.

The only one of these puppies in existence in 2001 was on static display outside Cape Caneveral, Florida. So all we have to do now is see if it's missing! If it's not there anymore, it must have hit the WTC!!!

What do you mean, there were TWO towers hit?!?!? AND the Pentagon?!

 

[Drudgewire]

This thread.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The only one of these puppies in existence in 2001 was on static display outside Cape Caneveral, Florida. So all we have to do now is see if it's missing! If it's not there anymore, it must have hit the WTC!!!

Nope still there as of 2006

Any one wanna tell me what the lower manhattan area witnessed that day if all the videos were fake... because there was something near a quarter million people within a few blocks of the towers at the time of impact.