Absolute proof of video fakery

[Homeland Insurgency]

No Planers should be very careful about accusing other people of having "no evidence" on the "people who live in Glass Houses,etc" principal.

Wow you've read the one about the "people who live in glass houses"?

Now try the one about "The Emperors New Clothes".

http://wtc.nist.gov/

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

I can never tell one posting style from another, but every single time one's outed they'd already been on my ignore list just like the original persona.

Learning anything about yourself and your indoctrination?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Perhaps you could summarize the huge volume of evidence you have to support the official story. it would give us something to practice our reading skills on.

"Hello? Acme Goal Post Removals... Miss Hutchison speaking... How may I help you? Well... uh, let's see.... two stepvans 0100 GMT... JREF Forums CT threads... Okay. You got it! We'll send the vans right over. And thank you for calling Acme."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

No, the offcial story does NOT admit it has no hard evidence against Osama. You're trying to be misleading about him not being on the msot wanted list for a specific reason. There is no doubt by the FBI or anyone other than crackpots that Osama was the leader of Al Qeada and that Al Qeada carried out the attacks. Once again, the evidence has been listed and is conclusive. It stands up in a court of law.

Now can any of your crackpot theories do the same? You can't even support your faked video nonsense. You can't even stick up for your own beliefs or support them because you have absolutely no evidence what so ever to support your crackpot theories.

Like creationism, your cult has to focus on casting doubt on real research to make up for the fact that you cannot support your own hypothesis. And to make it worse you make the same identical arguments as well the lemmings before you. But who are we kidding? you're not new here, you're just using a new login to make the same arguments you've been making for forever.

And yet years go by and still no one will listen to your crackpot theories. I guess it must be getting lonely down there eh?

 

[Drudgewire]

Learning anything about yourself and your indoctrination?

Yes, I have no patience for stupidity regardless of how it's packaged.

(knew you'd have to comment. Yes, you've been on ignore under the HI moniker from like your 4th post).

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Yes, I have no patience for stupidity regardless of how it's packaged.

(knew you'd have to comment. Yes, you've been on ignore under the HI moniker from like your 4th post).

Yeah that's right. No patience or tolerance and anything different then you is stupidity or worse.

It’s evil.

EEEEEEVAIL I SAY!

 

[mchapman]

Dead men don't need a trial. How about addressing your OP?

Wow, lets hope you dont get accused of ahenious crime then die before your trial.

Dead men are presumed innocent until proven guilty, like everybody else.

 

[mchapman]

No Planers should be very careful about accusing other people of having "no evidence" on the "people who live in Glass Houses,etc" principal.

When did I say I was a no planer?

 

[ktesibios]

Because I consider Infowars to be a less reliable source than my cats (who always say they're hungry and are always correct), I spent an hour or so going through the edit history of the Wikipedia article on American Airlines, page by page, using my browser's "find" function to look for any IPs in the 144.9.x.x block, which belongs to AA.

Eventually I did find the edit in question. The verbiage about the BTS database was added at 1845 UTC on May 5, 2006 by 144.9.8.21. It was removed about a month later by user Maverick05, with the comment "This is stupid and offensive. Keep conspiracy theories to their own pages.".

Since then, 144.9.8.21 has made some nine edits to the same article- none of them having anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. They have instead been trivia about the addition of winglets, corrections to the list of AA's partner airlines, and other things which a knowledgeable employee might be motivated to correct in an article about their workplace. Since 144.9.8.21 is very likely a gateway IP for an entire office (or building) we can't infer that all of these were made by the same person.

There has been, as far as I can determine, no attempt at all to put that text back in the Wiki article. These circumstances don't suggest that it was an official company position nor a genuine whistleblower. What they do suggest is some bored office dweeb who had internet access via the company network and used it to waste time reading conspiraloon Web sites.

Turning to the BTS database itself, I find this:

Airline on-time data are reported each month to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) by the 18 U.S. air carriers that have at least 1 percent of total domestic scheduled-service passenger revenues, plus two other carriers that report voluntarily. The data cover nonstop scheduled-service flights between points within the United States (including territories) as described in 14 CFR Part 234 of DOT's regulations.

Sauce

That an airline in the straits that AA was in after 9/11 could neglect reporting the on-time takeoff of the two worst disasters in their history is something that only a dedicated conspiracist can see as suspicious, or as having any evidentiary value at all.

When I see just how determined people like AJ are to perceive boogeymen behind every blade of grass, I marvel that they ever manage to walk to the bathroom without dying of fright.

 

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

If you believe either one of the two live shots was faked, then you must necessarily believe in no flying object.

 

[mchapman]

No, the offcial story does NOT admit it has no hard evidence against Osama. You're trying to be misleading about him not being on the msot wanted list for a specific reason. There is no doubt by the FBI or anyone other than crackpots that Osama was the leader of Al Qeada and that Al Qeada carried out the attacks. Once again, the evidence has been listed and is conclusive. It stands up in a court of law.

Now can any of your crackpot theories do the same? You can't even support your faked video nonsense. You can't even stick up for your own beliefs or support them because you have absolutely no evidence what so ever to support your crackpot theories.

Like creationism, your cult has to focus on casting doubt on real research to make up for the fact that you cannot support your own hypothesis. And to make it worse you make the same identical arguments as well the lemmings before you. But who are we kidding? you're not new here, you're just using a new login to make the same arguments you've been making for forever.

And yet years go by and still no one will listen to your crackpot theories. I guess it must be getting lonely down there eh?

Stop lying. WHen asked why 911 wasnt listed on Osama's wanted page. the FBI clearly stated it was because they had no hard evidence linking him to 911. That was their exact words.

We also never saw the dossier of evidence they promised to hand over to the Taliban.

And lets not forget Osama categorically denied being involved. Indeed, he implied it was an inside job. And he would know, what with his CIa roots.

 

[HyJinX]

When did I say I was a no planer?

So...was it missiles and planes then?

 

[mchapman]

If you believe either one of the two live shots was faked, then you must necessarily believe in no flying object.

Not necessarily.

 

[mchapman]

So...was it missiles and planes then?

When did I say it was missiles? I simply used that as an example of how the eyewitnesses are not 100% reliable. Please quote where I once said missiles were used. Stop putting words in peoples mouths and produce someevidence for a change.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I can never tell one posting style from another, but every single time one's outed they'd already been on my ignore list just like the original persona.

I don't care much for posting style... same claims, same bull*rule10*.

You have no evidence of anything.

Rather than focus on imaginary scenarios of me not having any evidence, perhaps you should be more concerned about the evidence you intend to provide to convince me that the planes were fakes in front of a good chunk of lower Manhattan. You asked for 50 witness that substantiated the presence of plane wreckage and witness of the plane impact. I provided you with a list of interview transcripts of rescue personnel who provided their input. Other member subsequently provided you with the testimony you asked for, and what did you do? You shifted goal posts again, and then out of nowhere (unsurprisingly) you hand-waved the rescue personnel as testimony coming from government employees, and you ignored the subsequent information provided to you.

You just parrot an official story.

You assume too much
I understood the basic collapse mechanisms in the twin towers when I had started studying architecture in the same year. I read the NIST report earlier this year to satisfy my curiosity and see if the overall material was consistent with what I knew, and in general I agree with the basic concepts. Truth movement claims on the other hand aren't justified especially in regard to structural engineering aspects of the towers and your more recent no-planer claims. I think I'm more than capable of having my own opinion on this.

Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama...

This is not the case

You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

As AJM8125 so elegantly put it, dead men don't need trials

 

[Drudgewire]

Truth movement claims on the other hand aren't justified especially in regard to structural engineering aspects of the towers and your more recent no-planer claims. I think I'm more than capable of having my own opinion on this.

Clearly you've never seen the cardboard boxes demonstration, Mr. Smartypants.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I think I've already quite decisively blown up the missile fallacy.

The explosive yield is too large for any MANPAD system I've ever heard of, The largest cruise missile EVER CREATED is still too small to be reasonably confused for an aircraft, and the nature of the explosion itself rules out any sort of unitary warhead, thus eliminating over 90 percent of the free world arsenal.

And as for "doing it live" on the plane effect?!? What this suggests is that all of the NYC area stations, indeed, even stations OUTSIDE of the area simultaneously had their Technical Directors run a production control effect that made it appear that planes hit the towers?!? Several different TV stations with a myriad of different shot angles on the second tower SOMEHOW managed to both have the video effect made beforehand at the PRECISE angle and cutout (luma key) dimensions and everything?!? And that furthermore, all of the camera shots for the individual specific network that had that specific effect built were exactly in the right position at the right place as far as pan/tilt/zoom/focus, etc? FURTHERmore, the technical directors at the boards OF EVERY SINGLE STATION covering the event ALL ran this effect at precisely the right time in perfect synchronicity?!?!?

How can the government be so smart as to plan such a highly detailed media operations campaign to do a synchronized video effect covering a myriad of different camera shots hits at exactly the same time at every single one of the TV networks...and then be so stupid as to leave enough breadcrumbs so that gentlemen such as yourselves can unravel this vast conspiracy???

Short answer : It isn't.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

So...was it missiles and planes then?

Who knows? Maybe there should be an investigation.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Oh by the way...Production control switchers in use at TV stations couldn't do that effect live. That demonstration video that was linked to was OBVIOUSLY done in post-production and not executed through a video switcher such as a TD might use in a real TV station.

Booyakasha.

 

[CptColumbo]

I watched the video in the OP, and as someone with a Technical college degree in Television Production (Hennepin Technical College - Eden Prairie Campus 89-92, Director of Department Don Leann) I see no manipulation of the picture through video FX. However, the quality of the footage used in this video is poor and it is hard for me to give an absolute determination based on it. On the other hand I have the DVD of the Naudet documentary (it's very good) and see no video FX in the relevant area of the documentary or anything out of the ordinary.

Keep in mind that the FX tech I was working with was in the early 90's, have since gone into a different profession (along with a Bachelor's Degree and MFA in Theatre) and do not keep up on the current technology.

I do still know people in the industry who do work in visual effects, in the past I had them look at the same footage and they saw no VFX being used.