Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[Macgyver1968]

Slactivism! Lol.

Surely someone who once faked their own suicide would have the requisite social skills to reach out via US mail to various TV networks, right?

What a great term!

Slacktivism

We can't claim credit for having coined this term, nor do we know its actual origin, but we love it nonetheless. Slacktivism is the search for the ultimate feel-good that derives from having come to society's rescue without actually getting one's hands dirty, volunteering any of one's time, or opening one's wallet. It's slacktivism that prompts us to forward appeals for business cards on behalf of a dying child intent upon having his name recorded in the Guinness World Book of Records or exhortations to others to continue circulating a particular e-mail because some big company has supposedly promised that every forward will generate monies for the care of a languishing tot. Likewise, it's slacktivism that prompts us to want to join a boycott of designated gas companies or eschew buying gasoline on a particular day rather than reduce our personal consumption of fossil fuels by driving less and taking the bus more often. Slacktivism comes in many forms, but its defining characteristic is its central theme of doing good with little or no effort on the part of the person inspired to participate, through the mechanisms of forwarding, exhorting, collecting, or e-signing.

Our essay on the ineffectiveness of Internet petitions delves further into the topic.

 

[BigAl]

there are I think at least 6 videos of the 2nd plane hit. none of them have any strange anamollies.

therefore, due to this and the eyewitnessing of my relatives and friends, I have NO doubt that 2 planes hit two towers on 9-11-01.

and neither should anyone else, of sound mind.

Some people had scary close-up views of the plane impacts from upper floors of adjacent buildings. These books give specifics.


A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath By Callaway

102 Minutes by Dwyer & Flynn

 

[bill smith]

I just skimmed this thread, wanted to pass on that Ronald Wieck emailed me and mentioned they covered the 'nose-out' nonsense in a Hardfire show. I found a copy here:

Very rewarding.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Somebody called Teddy told me. I was surprised too to be honest.

I see. So when you said I'd made that information public myself, you were lying. Thanks for clearing that up.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

No, it doesn't, but I wouldn't expect a truther to understand why not.

We have two sets of pictures, both of which look a bit like the nose of an airliner, but which look clearly different from each other; anyone and everyone can tell which picture belongs to which set. The no-planer claim is that they are pictures of the exact same object. The fact that they are distinguishable from each other proves that they are not. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that one of them is the nose of an airliner, and the other is an ejected debris field which bears a superficial, but not exact, resemblance to the nose of an airliner.

Therefore, it disproves the point.

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

You may be right. Since the object emerging is clearly not the nose of the plane, it's rather a minor point. I've been told by Ace Baker and by sane people that the Chopper 5 video wasn't live, but I'm prepared to accept evidence to the contrary.

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

And he would be an authority on that why, exactly?

Dave

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

For the Nose-out Theory:

 

[TruthersLie]

Here. I'll buy you a clue. You're new here. You probably don't have the first clue of what I do for a living. I'm a television editor. Have been for 18 years. Was a tape operator, master control switcher, production switcher, studio/remote/EFP/ENG cameraman and occasional audio guy in the 12 years prior to that.

I don't have to imagine diddly. I've been working with this stuff since the 70's. You'll have to do better than that to dent my tin, little man. If you don't want to understand, fine! Just don't pretend that you have a clue when somebody asks though.

Fitz... he is just like all twoofs... non educated, non experienced, but with an over inflated sense of self worth and accomplishment. The perfect product of an educaiton system which focuses more on student self esteem rather than their knowledge base.

It comes with the idea that his opinion (and ace bakers, simon shack, etc) is JUST AS VALID as people who have the academic degrees and years of experience.

 

[TruthersLie]

Some people had scary close-up views of the plane impacts from upper floors of adjacent buildings. These books give specifics.


A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath By Callaway

102 Minutes by Dwyer & Flynn

Big Al.

HOW DARE YOU?

How dare you ask twoofs to READ SOMETHING. From a BOOK of all places? What is wrong with you?

Unless it is a youtube video in high definition and slow motion it is NOT FAIR to them.

 

[bardamu]

You familiar with GIGO? Garbage in, Garbage out? Plus, again, we have the whole digitising from an analogue format to a consumer-grade editing platform with codecs that toss away gobs of information. Then it's cut, output to a (likely-humungous) file which he'll attempt to upload to YouTube (whose compression scheme is as subtle and refined as a chainsaw) and then he'll go "See? See? It's a conspiracy!" which will be evident to nobody to but truthers. This is the video equivalent of seeing Jesus in a piece of toast.

Here. I'll buy you a clue. You're new here. You probably don't have the first clue of what I do for a living. I'm a television editor. Have been for 18 years. Was a tape operator, master control switcher, production switcher, studio/remote/EFP/ENG cameraman and occasional audio guy in the 12 years prior to that.

I don't have to imagine diddly. I've been working with this stuff since the 70's. You'll have to do better than that to dent my tin, little man. If you don't want to understand, fine! Just don't pretend that you have a clue when somebody asks though.

A sterling example of multiple-generations of decompression/recompression uprezzed from a low-resolution analogue source.

Go ahead and take a video of debris being ejected from an exploding building, copy it, digitize it, compress it, decompress it and recompress so that it's indistinguishable from a video of the nose of a 767 which has undergone the same treatment.

I just skimmed this thread, wanted to pass on that Ronald Wieck emailed me and mentioned they covered the 'nose-out' nonsense in a Hardfire show. I found a copy here:

It's a pity you didn't post a link to the bit where Steve Wright claims that the transmission black-out was caused by the automatic gain control of the camera closing the aperture altogether due to the brightness of the explosion. Did Steve Wright go into hiding after that epic piece of nonsense?

Oh you are just limiting it to the chopper 5 shot? Why is that? I mean with dozens of video images of a jet (clearly a passenger jet) striking the tower, why limit it to one grainy, out of focus, highly zoomed shot from a distance away?

Why do that?
I have clearly shown you video showing there is no nose in, nose out. All three clearly show the impact of 175. The Nose in/Engine Out video clearly shows what happened.

Why do you no planers take bad out of focus, massively zoomed images and then try to spin an argument while ignoring all of the rest of the video images?

The discussion is about the nose out in the Chopper 5 video. The other videos are a different subject, especially the ones that weren't shown live.

Lawson clearly and utterly destroys simonshack. He points out the lies and deceptions of the no brainers... oops, I mean no planers.

Do you think the nose out would be visible if the whole layer mask moved to the left?

Yes it proves the point that if you take fuzzy, out of focus, highly zoomed video and then compress it to examine it you will see almost whatever you want... I'm sure we could find bigfoot in that footage somewhere if we tried hard enough... just stand back from your computer, squint your left eye and hop on one foot.

If we could see bigfoot in the video, you'd say it wasn't real, so what makes you believe the plane is real?

Oh so there aer 535 people out of a country of 300 million (and a world population of over 5 BILLION. so let me do the math on the ... oh **** it... that is less than one tenth of one hundredths of one percent. yea... wow... with numbers like that one day you might just be relevant... in like 3050

Exactly my point. Why is it that the no planers want the TV companies to release broadcast quality videos but the plane-believers don't care?

We have two sets of pictures, both of which look a bit like the nose of an airliner, but which look clearly different from each other; anyone and everyone can tell which picture belongs to which set. The no-planer claim is that they are pictures of the exact same object. The fact that they are distinguishable from each other proves that they are not.

They are on opposite sides of the tower, which means the angle will have changed slightly and the brightness and colour of the background may not be exactly the same. A few pixels on the edges could have changed colour.

You may be right. Since the object emerging is clearly not the nose of the plane, it's rather a minor point. I've been told by Ace Baker and by sane people that the Chopper 5 video wasn't live, but I'm prepared to accept evidence to the contrary.

Are you sure he wasn't talking about the Chopper 4 video on NBC? If the object emerging in the Chopper 5 video is the nose of a cgi plane, it's a rather major point.

And he would be an authority on that why, exactly?

He says he knows about the conspiracy theories so he's had time to give it some thought, and being a TV news cameraman he should have enough sense to know it's not possible.

 

[bardamu]

Fitz... he is just like all twoofs... non educated, non experienced, but with an over inflated sense of self worth and accomplishment. The perfect product of an educaiton system which focuses more on student self esteem rather than their knowledge base.

I received my education well before 9/11, when common sense was a virtue and not a vice.

 

[dtugg]

No planers are some of the stupidest, craziest people in the world.

I don't give a **** about amateur analysis of compressed video by psychos with an agenda. Planes hit the WTC on 9/11, get over it, losers. How do I know this, a deranged no planer might ask. Well, I saw it happen. In real life. But don't listen to me. I might work for the NWO.

 

[carlitos]

REAL LIFE? Now you are really being unfair. Don't you know that "real life" is just a Sim?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Go ahead and take a video of debris being ejected from an exploding building, copy it, digitize it, compress it, decompress it and recompress so that it's indistinguishable from a video of the nose of a 767 which has undergone the same treatment.

Here's the rub: I don't have to. Twoofers have to shoulder the burden of going to original sources and demonstrating that the original sources differ from the video dogs' breakfast that they pass off as this nose-out malarkey.

Oh! But wait! bill smith already claims to have seen the original tape and accused FOX of 'fixing' it to match reality.

It's a pity you didn't post a link to the bit where Steve Wright claims that the transmission black-out was caused by the automatic gain control of the camera closing the aperture altogether due to the brightness of the explosion. Did Steve Wright go into hiding after that epic piece of nonsense?

Don't know. Don't care. He's allowed to be wrong. I would've called Bravo Sierra on that explanation because camera AGCs (especially broadcast-quality camera AGCs [which any camera operator with any degree of experience doesn't use anyway]) don't respond that drastically to such a relatively minor change in overall picture brightness. I recall positing that the camera operator tweaked the camera iris on a lens already at the threshold of closed. However, I've heard the cameraman insists that wasn't the case. So hey! I'll take his word on it over mine: I wasn't there. That and the interruption to the signal path tagged-in with multiple compression/decompression passes making what appears to be a 2-frame fade to black quite reasonably explains that particular video.

The discussion is about the nose out in the Chopper 5 video. The other videos are a different subject, especially the ones that weren't shown live.

The Chopper 5 video is one of many views of the same thing. Dismissing discussion of comparables is a mug's way of avoiding the ugly truth.

Do you think the nose out would be visible if the whole layer mask moved to the left?

Since there was no layer mask, no. However, indulging your little flight of fancy (so to speak), if I were going to fake a plane crash in the Ace Baker school of reasoning, why would I use a 2-sided mask? Why (given all the other deep, dark and evil preparations that have been made up to this point) would I use a mask with its potential for error in a situation like Chopper 5's video when a simple vertical wipe placed at the desired location would completely forestall any video of the Ace Baker CGI plane appearing to the left of that wipe? No nose-out. No muss, no fuss.

KISS

Yes it proves the point that if you take fuzzy, out of focus, highly zoomed video and then compress it to examine it you will see almost whatever you want... I'm sure we could find bigfoot in that footage somewhere if we tried hard enough... just stand back from your computer, squint your left eye and hop on one foot.

If we could see bigfoot in the video, you'd say it wasn't real, so what makes you believe the plane is real?

If it were bigfoot, I'd say he obviously has a King Kong Komplex. However, given that this is NYC we're talking about, it's more likely that we'd see the Naked Cowboy© scaling the WTC

Exactly my point. Why is it that the no planers want the TV companies to release broadcast quality videos but the plane-believers don't care?

Because no-planers think the exception proves the rule. Normal people use common sense.

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

And he would be an authority on that why, exactly?

He says he knows about the conspiracy theories so he's had time to give it some thought, and being a TV news cameraman he should have enough sense to know it's not possible.

I've given 9/11 and the WTC some thought. Is that really the threshold of qualification in the no-planer world? And obviously musicians and sound engineers should have enough sense to know that plane noses going through buildings are unlikely at best. But there's obviously at least one who doesn't have that much sense. Does this make all musicians and sound engineers idiots?

Or just a select group?

 

[twinstead]

I received my education well before 9/11, when common sense was a virtue and not a vice.

If you think common sense trumps true expertise concerning potentially counter-intuitive subjects then your education was an epic fail.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I received my education well before 9/11, when common sense was a virtue and not a vice.

Common sense refers to sense shared by the commons, the majority. Truthers alone are a statistical rounding error against that milieu and no-planers are a statistical rounding error within trutherism.

To whit, you virtually don't exist (which is born out by real-world observation)

 

[bardamu]

How many shots went out live exactly as it happened? Do we know? Exactly? I know how we should know. I just want to know if this has been answered before and exactly which shots they are. It shouldn't be hard for debunkers to answer. They know everything.

Algebra34 asked this question in the diesel tanks thread but I think it's more appropriate to answer it here.

The ABC Chopper 7 shot which shows the South Tower hidden behind the North Tower and the plane disappearing behind the two towers was shown live on ABC, live on other channels all over the world, and is in the archives. The 'nose out' Chopper 5 shot was shown live on at least one FOX channel, but the main FOX archives has a close-up of the towers instead, which completely misses the plane but catches some of the explosion. The NBC Chopper 4 shot is in the archives but as the plane is approaching the towers, the shot switches to a close-up of the North Tower, missing the plane but catching part of the explosion.

A few minutes after the live shots, CNN broadcast their own 'replay' of the plane, which they hadn't broadcast live, then later they showed it from another camera angle.

At around 6pm, the TV stations started to show the videos of the actual impact, which had been filmed by freelancers and amateurs and handed to the FBI.

All this is in the archives:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html

I may have left some details out because I haven't watched the whole day's footage for every channel - only ABC and the BBC - but I've seen up to the collapse of the towers on all six channels.

 

[carlitos]

???

Algebra34 asked this question in the diesel tanks thread but I think it's more appropriate to answer it here.

The ABC Chopper 7 shot which shows the South Tower hidden behind the North Tower and the plane disappearing behind the two towers was shown live on ABC, live on other channels all over the world, and is in the archives. The 'nose out' Chopper 5 shot was shown live on at least one FOX channel, but the main FOX archives has a close-up of the towers instead, which completely misses the plane but catches some of the explosion. The NBC Chopper 4 shot is in the archives but as the plane is approaching the towers, the shot switches to a close-up of the North Tower, missing the plane but catching part of the explosion.

A few minutes after the live shots, CNN broadcast their own 'replay' of the plane, which they hadn't broadcast live, then later they showed it from another camera angle.

At around 6pm, the TV stations started to show the videos of the actual impact, which had been filmed by freelancers and amateurs and handed to the FBI.

All this is in the archives:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html

I may have left some details out because I haven't watched the whole day's footage for every channel - only ABC and the BBC - but I've seen up to the collapse of the towers on all six channels.

Could you please explain why this is relevant to the events of 11-September, 2001?

ETA - Please be specific. I am totally not following your argument here.

 

[Pardalis]

You know, it's not because you decided to call yourself Bardamu that you have to act like him, like an idiot.

 

[Dave Rogers]

They are on opposite sides of the tower, which means the angle will have changed slightly and the brightness and colour of the background may not be exactly the same. A few pixels on the edges could have changed colour.

Keep on retreating. At the moment, you're claiming that they look the same on the basis that they don't look very different.

Are you sure he wasn't talking about the Chopper 4 video on NBC? If the object emerging in the Chopper 5 video is the nose of a cgi plane, it's a rather major point.

Since it isn't, it's an irrelevant point.

He says he knows about the conspiracy theories so he's had time to give it some thought, and being a TV news cameraman he should have enough sense to know it's not possible.

So news cameramen are now experts on structural engineering and materials science? Who'd have though that?

I really don't know what point you're trying to make here, anyway. If your point is that a news cameraman thought the plane could have passed through the towers therefore it's possible, that undermines your argument. If your point is that the cameraman was wrong, then since none of the conventional understanding of 9/11 is based on the structural engineering expertise of TV cameramen, who cares?

Dave

 

[Slayhamlet]

I received my education well before 9/11, when common sense was a virtue and not a vice.

Except that what you call "common sense" is neither common nor sensible. So in what way is no-planer piffle which even the majority of Truthers frown upon supposed to be taken as common sense?