Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[alienentity]

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

<snip>
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.

Bardamu, central to any intelligent discussion is the question of how evidence is to be evaluated, and which evidence is to be evaluated.

I propose a simple test for you, regarding eyewitnesses and whether you will ever accept an eyewitness report if it counters your argument.

1) Consider the case of Barry Jennings, who was inside WTC7, and reported a large explosion in that building before the WTC towers collapsed, thus indicating controlled demolition charges.

Do you accept his testimony? Yes or no.

2) Consider the thousands of eyewitnesses in NYC on 9/11, some of whom post on this forum, who saw, with their own eyes, the second jet hit WTC2.

Do you accept their testimony? Yes or no.


The result of the test should be fairly obvious, if you dare answer the questions.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I still don't know how experience in music prepares one for video analysis? I believe we have been through this last time someone came in here pushing the no planer nonsense.

Of course all the arguments seem to fall on ignoring eye witness testimony, showing a lack of knowledge in the realm of digital effects.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

Made up delusions by the author do not support the conclusion the media is in on 911 as a false flag event. Anyone can talk to a witness who saw Flight 175 hit the WTC making the video a moronic lie.

Your failed ideas on 911 would vaporize with knowledge, but you have to want to learn instead of making a career posting lies and dirt dumb videos made by idiots.

 

[T.A.M.]

Intelligent Discussion + Noplaner = Impossible.

TAM

 

[fullflavormenthol]

What I love is the supposed claim by no planers that there are no real witnesses, but at the same time they refuse to accept any witness that actually says they saw planes hit. Oh that and the fact they would more than likely harass anyone that didn't agree with them.

 

[Wolrab]

I remember the last time a new member so vociferously defended Ace Baker. Just remember the arguments are as stale as old smelly socks.

 

[bardamu]

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.

Steve Wright has impressive credentials as a videographer, yet he comes up with a ridiculous story like that. Can you see why I'm not happy to leave it to the experts?

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.

The non-live impact videos need a different explanation.

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.

I'm a layman but I'm prepared to learn from somebody who knows. Would a vertical wipe be able to track the tower's edge and stick to it as the camera moved? If not, it might be more risky to use than the layer mask.

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)

So opinion polls do count?

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.

It's relevant to the difficulty of faking planes, because the cgi's that were broadcast live or soon after the event were relatively simple, whereas the more complex ones didn't emerge till around 9 hours after they were filmed.

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

Ca m'a fait rigoler !...

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

How come the squibs from the collapses fan out like trumpets but the cloud of dust that forms the nose out is shaped like a bullet?

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

Who'd have thought anybody would need a degree in structural engineering to know the nose of a passenger aircraft couldn't pass through two rows of steel columns and come out come out looking just fine?

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?

I mentioned it when I posted the link because I find it amusing that anybody could believe that.

 

[T.A.M.]

That a noplaner could find anyone believing anything "amusing" is well...AMUSING!

TAM

 

[carlitos]

It's relevant to the difficulty of faking planes, because the cgi's that were broadcast live or soon after the event were relatively simple, whereas the more complex ones didn't emerge till around 9 hours after they were filmed.

CGI = "Computer-Generated Image"

Who could insert a "computer generated image" in the sky over Manhattan? Thousands of people saw AND HEARD the second plane hit. Are you nuts?

ETA - link

 

[T.A.M.]

CGI = "Computer-Generated Image"

Who could insert a "computer generated image" in the sky over Manhattan? Thousands of people saw AND HEARD the second plane hit. Are you nuts?

ETA - link

yes but if they can't find a direct quote saying so on the internetz, then OBVIOUSLY there were no witnesses to the crash.

TAM

 

[Macgyver1968]

How do you add a cgi plane to a live video feed? Those are some seriously fast programmers..I tell you what. On all the stations too. What about all of the amateur videos out there? Was every single photograph or video shot on 911 a fake?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

How do you add a cgi plane to a live video feed? Those are some seriously fast programmers..I tell you what. On all the stations too. What about all of the amateur videos out there? Was every single photograph or video shot on 911 a fake?

Well if Ace Baker was making the argument he would make a dumb claim like they did the CGI ahead of time, and then really really practiced the shots to line up right. Than again it is a really stupid claim.

 

[fitzgibbon]

How do you add a cgi plane to a live video feed? Those are some seriously fast programmers..I tell you what. On all the stations too. What about all of the amateur videos out there? Was every single photograph or video shot on 911 a fake?

It's part of the pre-production planning, Mac. The MIB plan the route and camera-framing that Chopper 5 (and all other video sources) are going to using, do pre-production storyboards, give the storyboards to their MIB CGI programmers, output the plane imagery to video file for their MIB-controlled technicians to insert into the pre-planned live shots.

However, no-planers have to believe that FOX's MIB-controlled camera operator pooched his one money shot and for proof cite low-resolution, multi-pass compressed/decompressed footage uploaded to YouTube. Perish the thought that they'd scrape their vast fortunes together to license a hi-resolution copy of the footage they claim proves their mad assertion.

 

[BigAl]

How do you add a cgi plane to a live video feed? Those are some seriously fast programmers..I tell you what. On all the stations too. What about all of the amateur videos out there? Was every single photograph or video shot on 911 a fake?

I want to know how "CGI" faked the audio blast of the jet running flat-out that turned heads everywhere. For Flight 11, a Truther that was in mid-town west side described it in a Youtube video as a telling comment in an otherwise pointless video. The Naudet video also shows heads turning to the sound.

 

[alexi_drago]

CG overlay on live footage from a chopper, hahahaha, that would show up so badly on all that image steadying stuff the twoofers have stuck on youtube no matter what the resolution/image quality.

 

[Macgyver1968]

CGI = "Computer-Generated Image"

Who could insert a "computer generated image" in the sky over Manhattan? Thousands of people saw AND HEARD the second plane hit. Are you nuts?

ETA - link

The most relevant question. I hope he answers.

Speaking of sound....

When I lived in St. Louis, there was a road that ran along the side of Lambert International airport. At one point, at the end of a runway, there was a "public viewing area", a place you could park, and the planes would fly directly over you at an altitude of only a few hundred feet. It was pretty cool, and a favorite "make out" spot for the teenagers.

Whenever a plane would fly over, the sound was deafening, and literally shook the ground.

1000's of people heard the planes fly over that day....I wonder how you could fake ground shaking jet noise?

 

[Macgyver1968]

It's part of the pre-production planning, Mac. The MIB plan the route and camera-framing that Chopper 5 (and all other video sources) are going to using, do pre-production storyboards, give the storyboards to their MIB CGI programmers, output the plane imagery to video file for their MIB-controlled technicians to insert into the pre-planned live shots.

However, no-planers have to believe that FOX's MIB-controlled camera operator pooched his one money shot and for proof cite low-resolution, multi-pass compressed/decompressed footage uploaded to YouTube. Perish the thought that they'd scrape their vast fortunes together to license a hi-resolution copy of the footage they claim proves their mad assertion.

By far the biggest "One Take Jake" in the history of videography.

 

[Algebra34]

Steve Wright has impressive credentials as a videographer, yet he comes up with a ridiculous story like that. Can you see why I'm not happy to leave it to the experts?




The non-live impact videos need a different explanation.




I'm a layman but I'm prepared to learn from somebody who knows. Would a vertical wipe be able to track the tower's edge and stick to it as the camera moved? If not, it might be more risky to use than the layer mask.




So opinion polls do count?




It's relevant to the difficulty of faking planes, because the cgi's that were broadcast live or soon after the event were relatively simple, whereas the more complex ones didn't emerge till around 9 hours after they were filmed.




Ca m'a fait rigoler !...




How come the squibs from the collapses fan out like trumpets but the cloud of dust that forms the nose out is shaped like a bullet?




Who'd have thought anybody would need a degree in structural engineering to know the nose of a passenger aircraft couldn't pass through two rows of steel columns and come out come out looking just fine?




I mentioned it when I posted the link because I find it amusing that anybody could believe that.

Nice post bardamu. Don't let up.

 

[dtugg]

LOL@HI defending the no-paner.

 

[A W Smith]

Both afflicted.

Nice post bardamu. Don't let up.

Yes don't let up Marmaduke.


(his mental illness is entertaining.)

seems you and him have something in common Algebra