• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

bardamu said:
If pictures of the tip of the 'nose in' and pictures of the tip of the 'engine out' were mixed up, would you be able to tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Yes. Ace Baker set it as a challenge here a year or two ago. Everybody who tried it was able to separate the pictures correctly into two groups; although the two objects were similar enough that it wasn't clear which group was which, they were distinct enough to be distinguishable from one another. That wasn't the result Ace wanted, so he tried to pretend it proved his point anyway - standard truther MO.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
The main thing to establish is that the visual of the plane penetrating the building is the authentic video as seen on live TV on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Yawn. It was seen on 9/11, not live but slightly delayed. It's still on the CNN 9/11 archives. And it doesn't show the nose coming out of the far side of the building.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yawn. It was seen on 9/11, not live but slightly delayed. It's still on the CNN 9/11 archives. And it doesn't show the nose coming out of the far side of the building.

Dave
Click to expand...

Do you confirm that the live broadcast from FOX on 9/11 clearly showed the plane penetrating the building ? (As seen in the attached hyperlink ?).

Please be clear in your answer and try to avoid obfuscation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5338709&postcount=377 hyperlink
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Do you confirm that the live broadcast from FOX on 9/11 clearly showed the plane penetrating the building ? (As seen in the attached hyperlink)
Click to expand...

No, I don't confirm anything of the sort. The Chopper 5 video was not shown live, and it doesn't show the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the building. Do you plan on learning to read any time soon?

Dave
 
bill smith said:
The main thing to establish is that the visual of the plane penetrating the building is the authentic video as seen on live TV on 9/11.
Click to expand...

The original? You've got the original, Bill??!! Wow! Then, certainly - let's get to work analyzing it.

Wha - ??? You mean you don't and you're referring to a YouTube upload by a guy who said it was "from the original"? I think as Fitzgibbon is trying to indicate (perhaps too subtly for you), some piece of crap analysis of frozen frames off of a YouTube upload wouldn't get past the reception area at CSI. You need to get your hands on the source material.

We suggested this to Ace, and to his credit, he appears to have actually tried to get his hands on one or another piece. But we think he failed, ultimately, because he opened his request for assistance with "Dear idiotic government shill" and didn't quite endear himself to them. Now, you, with all your charm (and those finely turned ankles, I should add), I'm sure you could get your hands on some of the source material. And we have a couple of video technicians here who'd be more than happy to work through it with you.

So? Are you half the man Ace Baker is? At least he bellied up to the bar and gave it a shot.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I don't confirm anything of the sort. The Chopper 5 video was not shown live, and it doesn't show the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the building. Do you plan on learning to read any time soon?

Dave
Click to expand...

This is Dave Rogers, world-famous British Doctor of Physics and author who is making the statement I am answering here. I suggest that interested parties read the short exchange and file this away for future reference should it be needed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5341881 link to thread
 
bill smith said:
Do you confirm that the live broadcast from FOX on 9/11 clearly showed the plane penetrating the building ? (As seen in the attached hyperlink ?).
Click to expand...

You clearly ignored by post about video encoding/decoding, didn't you? You (and others of your ilk) don't want to know or understand how it is that your cherished "nose out" conspiracy video is actually just a video artifact introduced by multiple levels of video compression and decompression, do you?

Anyone watching (and more importantly) listening to that video with an unjaundiced ear would recognise that this bit of video is being replayed sometime well after the fact of the initial impact, either before WTC 2 came down or sometime mid-afternoon would be my guess. So it isn't "live" per se but is, rather, tape playback.

That said, you provide no evidence whatever that this video is the as-broadcast footage from FOX. In fact, you accuse them of altering "the historical record" because (assuming you've actually seen their aircheck and aren't pulling this assertion out of your back passage) their tape doesn't show what your cherished "nose out" YouTube video does, completely and conveniently ignoring my entire point about video artifacting created by multiple encode/decode passes as the video passes through various stages in the distribution chain from broadcaster to viewer.

In fact, this video equivalent to Gage's 'thermite' sample. The video signal has gone from FOX production tape room to their production control room to their broadcast master control to their broadcast antenna. The broadcast antenna (or the direct connection with the cable companies) is where FOX's control over the signal ends. In all likelihood, the FOX aircheck was the made in the production control room recording the production switcher output. This would be as clean an image and unsullied a signal as you're going get. Once the signal leaves master control, all bets are off.

From there, the signal quality is at the mercy of the cablers (whether Toronto, Rat Portage or where-have-you) and/or satellite companies, both of whom introduce additional compression/decompression (often multiple times in their own signal chain) which throws away progressively more information before the video and audio is delivered to the home user. In this case, the home user has recorded it, likely on VHS tape. VHS tape in the best of circumstances is about half of broadcast resolution. So still more information lost.

Then our valiant video 'truther' digitised the low-resolution video on a consumer-grade video editing solution, throwing away yet more data at that stage. Then he edits, outputs to a digital video file a la QuickTime or Windows Media of one flavour or another, uploads to YouTube (which compresses yet again).

Talk about a muddied chain of custody! :boggled:

And you wonder why it is that the FOX original footage (if in fact you've actually seen it) doesn't show your cherished "nose out"? You don't seem to care to understand why it appeared to show it in the first place.
 
BTW, your link does in fact show the plane penetrating the building. I didn't think that was at issue. My post above just explains why the assertion that it exited the building (by glaring NWO mistake, of course) is a canard.

HTH
Fitz

eta: Sorry if I seem a bit didactic in my posts. Willful stupidity drives me bonkers. :mad:
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
Nice false choice set up...
1. I wouldn't examine any of simon shacks bs videos because he uses completely low resolution video images. Why is that? Oh because in high defintion video (of which there is several images of the jets hitting the second tower).
Click to expand...

You expect Simon Shack to use the Hezerkhani video in his analysis of the Chopper 5 shot?


TruthersLie said:
Alan Lawson completely destroys this by pointing out how Simon Shack LIES about it and distorts it by fading one image out...

why does simon shack do that? OH because they do not match.

I posted 3 videos which show that simon shack is full of crap. Please go back and watch them.

nose in, engine out.
Click to expand...

I've already shown you that Lawson doesn't know his subject.


Dave Rogers said:
Yes. Ace Baker set it as a challenge here a year or two ago. Everybody who tried it was able to separate the pictures correctly into two groups; although the two objects were similar enough that it wasn't clear which group was which, they were distinct enough to be distinguishable from one another. That wasn't the result Ace wanted, so he tried to pretend it proved his point anyway - standard truther MO.
Click to expand...

If it's not clear which pictures are ejected debris and which are the nose of a 767, it kind of does prove the point.


Dave Rogers said:
The Chopper 5 video was not shown live,
Click to expand...

In this footage the caption says "LIVE", not "EARLIER", and the news anchors sound like they at least believe they're going out live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYnMiN7teho

The cameraman says it's possible for the nose to go through the building.


Foolmewunz said:
We suggested this to Ace, and to his credit, he appears to have actually tried to get his hands on one or another piece. But we think he failed, ultimately, because he opened his request for assistance with "Dear idiotic government shill" and didn't quite endear himself to them.
Click to expand...

This is how he opened his request:

To: News Executives at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX

We, the undersigned, request the release of broadcast-quality copies of any and all significant September 11 news coverage you must have in your archives. Specifically, we request any and all video which depicts:

* UA flight 175 approaching or hitting the south world trade tower

* The orange-yellow glowing substance dripping from near the 89th floor of the south tower just prior to its collapse

* The actual collapse events

* The "spire" (a significant section of the north tower core which remained standing for several moments after the main collapse, only to then collapse itself)

* Any aspect of the aftermath at ground zero, the Pentagon, and Shanksville
Click to expand...

There are currently 535 signatures on the petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html
 
fitzgibbon said:
You clearly ignored by post about video encoding/decoding, didn't you? You (and others of your ilk) don't want to know or understand how it is that your cherished "nose out" conspiracy video is actually just a video artifact introduced by multiple levels of video compression and decompression, do you?

Anyone watching (and more importantly) listening to that video with an unjaundiced ear would recognise that this bit of video is being replayed sometime well after the fact of the initial impact, either before WTC 2 came down or sometime mid-afternoon would be my guess. So it isn't "live" per se but is, rather, tape playback.

That said, you provide no evidence whatever that this video is the as-broadcast footage from FOX. In fact, you accuse them of altering "the historical record" because (assuming you've actually seen their aircheck and aren't pulling this assertion out of your back passage) their tape doesn't show what your cherished "nose out" YouTube video does, completely and conveniently ignoring my entire point about video artifacting created by multiple encode/decode passes as the video passes through various stages in the distribution chain from broadcaster to viewer.

In fact, this video equivalent to Gage's 'thermite' sample. The video signal has gone from FOX production tape room to their production control room to their broadcast master control to their broadcast antenna. The broadcast antenna (or the direct connection with the cable companies) is where FOX's control over the signal ends. In all likelihood, the FOX aircheck was the made in the production control room recording the production switcher output. This would be as clean an image and unsullied a signal as you're going get. Once the signal leaves master control, all bets are off.

From there, the signal quality is at the mercy of the cablers (whether Toronto, Rat Portage or where-have-you) and/or satellite companies, both of whom introduce additional compression/decompression (often multiple times in their own signal chain) which throws away progressively more information before the video and audio is delivered to the home user. In this case, the home user has recorded it, likely on VHS tape. VHS tape in the best of circumstances is about half of broadcast resolution. So still more information lost.

Then our valiant video 'truther' digitised the low-resolution video on a consumer-grade video editing solution, throwing away yet more data at that stage. Then he edits, outputs to a digital video file a la QuickTime or Windows Media of one flavour or another, uploads to YouTube (which compresses yet again).

Talk about a muddied chain of custody! :boggled:

And you wonder why it is that the FOX original footage (if in fact you've actually seen it) doesn't show your cherished "nose out"? You don't seem to care to understand why it appeared to show it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Does the clip in this hyperlink support what you are saying Fitzgibbon ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5341990&postcount=425 plane penetrating
 
What part of "no planers are idiots, even according to other truthers" don't you folks understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom