Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

lets let him prove that 11 and 175 were not IDed from plane parts. he can even use a life-line.

I wouldn't even give him a life-line. However I would give him a fishing line, since he's payed out enough from worthless fighting just to get reeled into defeat.

 

[TexasJack]

My conclusion is that if you or anyone else could positively inventory and identify the wreckage found at any of the crash sites you would. But none of you ever do.

So you are a no-planer.

 

[Thunder]

On that fact I'm out tonight buddy.

figures.

I'm not gonna forget. I'm gonna be on him with this issue until he admits he cannot prove that these planes were not IDed from parts in NYC.

 

[TruthersLie]

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

In other words, just what I said.

Uneducated and unexperienced in the fields he is trying to talk out of his ass about. Got it.

Thank you for verifying it.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

Ah... dodge noted.

We have dozens of videos of a jet striking the second tower. The nose in engine out by 911truthinator shows the impact of the jet and you can see what is coming out the other side. So does Alan Lawsons videos.

It is extremely amusing watching you try to dodge it... they must be faked tapes, by shills...

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

Irrelevant and rather stupid. Again, if the military was doing it they would follow the KISS rule. Not make it MORE complex... Your argument from ignorance is noted.

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

hahahahaha. Dodge noted and the appeal is also noted. When you have highly zoomed images from a moving video camera that is a MILE away from the impacts then digitized, compressed, and a low quality video it is amazing that you can see anything...

But you want to try to compare low res pictures? Really? Go look at the video of different cameras and see what impacted the towers.

 

[TruthersLie]

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?

are you really that ignorant?
Lets see why would the squibs be different?
you have a floor of a building collapsing pushing ALL Of the air out of the area....

why would the dust from the impact be "shaped like a bullet?" OH because the tower was hit by a 100 ton bullet (a passenger jet at 500 mph).

<facepalm>

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?

Please provide the video showing this outrageous claim. No not the massively zoomed image which shows a black shape which isn't quite the same as the nose of a jet.

My videos (the three of them, nose in engine out and Alan Lawson) show you what hit the towers and what came out the other side.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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?

There were no squibs in the collapses, that's just another truther lie. And, in fact, what you're complaining about here is that the emissions of debris during the collapse didn't look like explosions, which is what we've been telling you all along.

But anyway, did the emerging object look like a bullet now? I thought it was supposed to look like the nose of an airliner. If there are other things (like, for example, a bullet) that look like the nose of an airliner - as your comment suggests - doesn't that weaken your argument even more?

Let me remind you that Ace Baker's original scenario was that the "nose-out" was a composited video segment of an airliner that wasn't stopped in time to prevent it appearing to emerge from the left hand side of the tower. You've now retreated to a position where you're in danger of having to claim that it was a video of an airliner that changed shape as it flew past the camera, because the "nose-out" object looks different. How does that work, exactly?

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.

Compared to the things you claim to believe, it's only moderately outlandish.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

My conclusion is that if you or anyone else could positively inventory and identify the wreckage found at any of the crash sites you would. But none of you ever do. On that fact I'm out tonight buddy. ...

You lack the evidence to support your delusions so you ignore the facts and deny the evidence.

Engines and aircraft parts are proof of aircraft hitting the WTC towers on 911. RADAR data and physics identify the aircraft this engine came from. Got Physics?

8 years of failed delusions - 911 truth, spreading lies freely for 8 years. Flight 93 Passengers figured out 911 in minutes, 911 truth has taken 8 years and made zero progress. Flight 93 Passengers took action, 911 truth has done nothing.

Be sure to share your delusions with any Thanksgiving hosts or guests you will be seeing shortly. Have you shared your insights with the FBI?

The "nose" is debris, not the fiberglass nose of Flight 175. energy=1/2mv², try using physics instead of posting junk science.

 

[bardamu]

I can't speak to what his credentials are or are not as far as having been a videographer.

Meet Steve Wright:

Steve Wright is a 20 year visual effects veteran with 70 broadcast television commercials and over 60 feature films credits. He actually started doing computer graphics when he was developing video games at Atari in Silicon Valley, then moved to 3D animation at Robert Abel and Associates in Hollywood.

With his partner Steven Sidley, he had a visual effects studio in Hollywoodfor seven years producing 3D animation and high end compositing, first for commercials then for feature films. Steve then joined Kodak’s Cinesite as a senior compositor and became the 2D technical director where he also supported Cinesite’s digital intermediate operation.

For the last year and a half Steve has been a freelance visual effects guru teaching, training, writing, and speaking about digital compositing and digital intermediate both domestically and internationally. The second edition of his popular first book, “Digital Compositing for Film and Video” was released a few months ago and he is currently writing an introductory book on compositing scheduled for release January 2008.

http://leaders.creativecow.net/leaders/wright_steve/

In any case, he clearly laid waste to Ace Baker and his ridiculous story.

Only if you're happy to ignore the miracle zoom, the amazing plane-shaped dust and the timely transmission black-out.

Not especially. He proffered an opinion. But the simple fact is that his degree of expertise and experience (and mine) trump that of inexperienced/clueless. You want a discussion of equals? Find me a no-planer with similar background and depth of experience in television production and transmission and I'll cheerfully have it out with him/her/it on this forum.

But don't bore me with the 'truther' mantra that belief trumps logic/evidence/proof.

Jury members listen to expert witnesses then decide for themselves.

Because.......?

The impact videos show the hole.

Why introduce two parameters that require adjustment in a dynamic environment when one will suffice?

Did you miss the KISS?

It's no use keeping it so simple that it can't do the job any more. According to Ace Baker, a luma key mask would stay fixed over the towers even if the chopper was moving. If the plane went in front of the towers or disappeared in mid air, not even the JREFers could cover for it.

So, if you're going to go to the trouble of storyboarding, rendering, outputting and doing a real-time composite for a couple of fairly pedestrian angles (which require just as much rendering time as for more exotic ones), why not front-load all the rendering, all the angles and flood the airwaves with a plethora of different video shots to even more firmly entrench the notion of airplane collisions and thereby forestall the 'truther' movement even more effectively?

You can't front-load all the rendering because the impact videos have to be 'reverse-engineered' after the holes have been made.

 

[bardamu]

OK. I spend most of my leisure time in a place called Artichoke Joe's Casino in San Bruno, CA. Do a google map and check the distance to SFO. Heavy planes fly so low there you can see the rivet pattern on the bellies. And they're freakin loud. Loud enough to drown out the sound of trains on the adjacent tracks. Then there's the annual visit by the USN's Blue Angels over my city. Yes, F/A-18 Super Hornets at full afterburner are freakin loud too.

All the more surprising that at least four TV correspondents reporting live from close to the WTC said the South Tower just exploded. They had no idea a plane had hit till they were told by the studio or by people going round saying they'd seen a plane (Harley Guy?).

Then why are you cheerleading for a no-planer for? You did read his posts, correct? Or you just taking his side because it is the opposite of everbody elses?

He's already told you:

It would just be a really bad plan if you ask me to just pretend after the fact they were hit by planes.

In other words, he doesn't start with his conclusion then go looking for evidence to back it up.

But I'm not a no planer. It just doesn't sound like a plan to me to have no planes at all and then after the fact just pretend planes hit the towers. Especially two strikes at different times at the same location. Who would green light such a plan and not think there would be a hundred cameras on the supposed second strike?

That's a good point. It turns out that when the second plane hit the South Tower ALL the TV cameras were on the other side of the WTC and none of them were pointing at the impacted wall. Chopper 5 was positioned at around 90 degrees to the approach, but still slightly to the north.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

No plane parts huh? here are pics of plane parts, including American Airlines parts and accessories.

It makes you wonder why there's a market for those 'passport holders' you see for sale to keep your passport in pristine condition while you're on your travels.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/al_suqami_passportcover.jpg/al_suqami_passportcover-full.jpg

Why don't you tell us how planes are identified?

I'd expect the insurance companies to examine the wreckage and identify the parts before forking out for four write-offs. From what I can gather, the airline companies and victims families were compensated directly by the government and no insurance claims were made. Does anybody have more information on that subject? Did Silverstein's case involve identification of aircraft parts?

I'm not gonna forget. I'm gonna be on him with this issue until he admits he cannot prove that these planes were not IDed from parts in NYC.

Epic shift of burden of proof.

 

[T.A.M.]

Guys it is pointless.

Algebra is from the school of thought that unless he is granted personal access to the plane parts, human remains, and all the other evidence, then it either (A) does not exist, or (B) is faked.

You cannot win an argument with someone who holds such an insane pov.

TAM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Guys it is pointless.

Algebra is from the school of thought that unless he is granted personal access to the plane parts, human remains, and all the other evidence, then it either (A) does not exist, or (B) is faked.

You cannot win an argument with someone who holds such an insane pov.

TAM

But the heart of the matter is he'll never get ahold of the physical evidence, EVER!

Those idiots been trying for over 8 yrs. to get the physical evidence but to no avail.

But to never give up is to win an arguement. Beat into his senseless skull with a rubber mallet then he might get the idea.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Steve Wright has impressive credentials as a videographer, yet he comes up with a ridiculous story like that.

I can't speak to what his credentials are or are not as far as having been a videographer.

Meet Steve Wright:
http://leaders.creativecow.net/leaders/wright_steve/

Lovely. You know what your link clearly proves? He isn't a videographer (aka ENG cameraman) nor claims to have been one. Thanking you for helping cement the point I made. I wish all challenges in life were self-correcting like this one.

In any case, he clearly laid waste to Ace Baker and his ridiculous story.

Only if you're happy to ignore the miracle zoom, the amazing plane-shaped dust and the timely transmission black-out.

Ah! Miracle zoom, eh? Cameraman doing something as mundane as checking focus? You see, that's what professional cameramen do; they zoom in as tight as their lens allows from wherever their camera is so that the lens' magnification of the image will magnify any slight focus problems. That way, if the director later calls for a push-in (zoom-in), the shot won't lose focus making cameraman, director and broadcaster look bush league.

Cameras in studio and remote trucks (OB vans for Continental readers) have what's called a tally light on the front (for the talent), viewfinder (for the camera operator) and usually the sides (for others who might need to be aware that a camera is on-air) and the tally system receives a signal from the production switcher whenever that camera is selected on the switcher. I don't know if part of the telemetry with a chopper camera includes tally so I'll assume it doesn't and the director will normally warn the camera operator that his/her camera is about to be taken on-air, when it's on-air and when it's clear. I'll wager that the FOX director on the day overlooked this bit of housekeeping. Given what was happening, it's understandable.

Unfortunately, there's nothing 'miraculous' about the zoom (coincidental, yes) or the plane-shaped dust (Newton's 3rd law) and the signal outage is tied-in with the signal interruption caused by the plane's impact.

All deep mysteries to the non-expert that turn out to be rather mundane in reality.

Jury members listen to expert witnesses then decide for themselves.

Uh huh. And Steve Wright's expertise is film and video compositing (which, oddly enough, that Hard Fire episode concerned). So do you know a no-planer with suitable film and television background for me to debate?

The non-live impact videos need a different explanation.

Because.......?

The impact videos show the hole.

And this makes Chopper 5's footage special and relevantly different because........?

It's no use keeping it so simple that it can't do the job any more. According to Ace Baker, a luma key mask would stay fixed over the towers even if the chopper was moving. If the plane went in front of the towers or disappeared in mid air, not even the JREFers could cover for it.

But you see, it WOULD do the job and far more effectively than the Rube Goldberg-ish model that Ace Baker has convinced himself of. I'd love to know where Ace got the notion that key masks are self-aligning, Steven. If they really work that way, why were the MIB FOX technicians so feckless as not to be using them? Does Ace still have a woody for an Avid as the perpetrating technology?

You can't front-load all the rendering because the impact videos have to be 'reverse-engineered' after the holes have been made.

Sure you can. No-planers are insisting that all videos showing planes impacting the WTC towers are faked and necessarily everyone who provided raw video would have had to be 'in on it'. Normal people don't do tracking pans of nothing. Since every shot would have been choreographed and storyboarded, the position of the holes (which would have, of course, been a known quantity) also would have been a known quantity and the only minor challenge would be to digitise the footage shot on the day, add the CGI planes, output back to tape and then provide said tape to broadcast networks for distribution hither and nigh.

Easy.

If any of it were remotely true that is.

 

[twinstead]

Damn. We all know no planers are idiots, and debating them is pointless, but it's like a train wreck. I can't look away.

 

[TexasJack]

Guys it is pointless.

Algebra is from the school of thought that unless he is granted personal access to the plane parts, human remains, and all the other evidence, then it either (A) does not exist, or (B) is faked.

You cannot win an argument with someone who holds such an insane pov.

TAM

Yes, in their crazy little world, nothing has been debunked.

1) The planes never hit the towers because the parts were never identified.

2) Nobody has debunked plane swapping, so that's a possibility.

3) Nobody has ruled out strange powerful unicorns, so you can't cross that out.

4) Cloned aliens.

5) A hurricane.

6-infinity) You fill in the blank.

 

[Thunder]

Algebra34- so where is that evidence that the FBI did not ID 175 and 11 from plane parts in NYC?

Mind you, the fact that DNA from passengers on both planes were found in the WTC, and radar data from both planes are UNBROKEN from take-off to impact, is pretty damn good evidence that the planes did strike the WTC, but still..

...where is your evidence that the FBI or some other agency did NOT identify 175 and 11 from wreckage in NYC?

p.s. I am NOT gonna let this one go.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Damn. We all know no planers are idiots, and debating them is pointless, but it's like a train wreck. I can't look away.

Oh, I suppose. Mind you, like the poor, they will (likely) always be with us. And as time marches on, I like to think of threads like this as reference material for debunkers-to-come to point back to in the dark recesses of 2009 and say "See? That theory's so 2009!"

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Well I lost my ability to actually try to prove anything to them. I once actually showed the difficulty of motion tracking footage to composite a plane over it, and Ace didn't understand enough about After Effects to know what I was doing. It goes to show that he has no real knowledge of how the software works.

All I earned was a severe headache and an angry post about me on Ace's blog.

I have only my experience compositing CG onto pre-recorded live action footage, but that doesn't really give me the ability to judge the possibility to compositing CG on live footage.

 

[fitzgibbon]

That's where the likes of me come in. I've been cutting and switching for a dog's age. Put me in front of almost any flavour of Avid (except DS), Final Cut Pro, Grass Valley 100 & 200-series, Ampex Vista & Century, Ross, CDL, CMX, Grass and Sony controllers and tag them with any VTR from an AVR-3 to a DVW-500 (including MII I might add), and I'll fill in the blanks.

There's a walloping big elephant in Ace's Avid room (aside from the obvious one) and I've only shared that with Pomeroo. Will he ever bump into it? I doubt it. But it's fun to watch him and his minions not recognise it.

 

[tsig]

lets let him prove that 11 and 175 were not IDed from plane parts. he can even use a life-line.

You mean a rope?