• 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

fitzgibbon said:
And........? They're where? Or is this the usual bs bait-and-switch?

I'll believe you actually intend to address the post when you don't run away like a Ritalin-deprived 10-year-old ADHD sufferer.
Click to expand...

There are other cats to skin elsewhere on the jref Fitz.
 
and yet still no admission that you were wrong about the video bill?

tsk tsk tsk. How can ANYONE take anything you say seriously, when you lie about something like this, and when proven so, will not admit it.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
and yet still no admission that you were wrong about the video bill?

tsk tsk tsk. How can ANYONE take anything you say seriously, when you lie about something like this, and when proven so, will not admit it.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

If you recheck the wording of that post TAM I think you will find that it does what intended it should do and within the bounds. E.G. draw attention to the fact that an inordinate amount of attenton is being paid to a blank wall. You know it- I know it and most importantly those watching know it too.
 
T.A.M. said:
and yet still no admission that you were wrong about the video bill?

tsk tsk tsk. How can ANYONE take anything you say seriously, when you lie about something like this, and when proven so, will not admit it.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

He's here to be noticed not contribute anything, TAM. If he actually intended to do anything save bicker, the time is long since past.
 
bill smith said:
If you recheck the wording of that post TAM I think you will find that it does what intended it should do and within the bounds. E.G. draw attention to the fact that an inordinate amount of attenton is being paid to a blank wall. You know it- I know it and most importantly those watching know it too.
Click to expand...

Lets look at the wording bill...


bill smith said:
In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets the blank uninteresting wall of WTC2 very close to centre screen and apparently not concentrating his atention on the burning WTC1 which is in shot but somewhat on on the periphery. Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2. (I would be running for my life at that point) I find this shot HIGHLY suspect. He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit. (or where they planned to inject the image if you are a no-planer) This really would explain the cameraman''s lack of action until the explosion ocurs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Naudet 2

PS click through the video from 45-47 seconds and see if you see anything odd like missing wings.
Click to expand...

I have bolded the wording.

1. The the "blank uninteresting wall of WTC2" is NO CLOSER to the CENTER of the screen then the burning area of WTC1.

2. WTC1 is no more to the periphery then WTC2. They are both EQUIDISTANT from the center of the screen horizontally.

As for the rest of the paranoid unsubstantiated speculation, well I will let all the onlookers judge that as well.

Fact is bill, you are MISREPRESENTING where things are in the picture INTENTIONALLY to emphasize your SUSPICION of the filming. That is wrong, and yet still will not admit, apologize, and move on.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
Fact is bill, you are MISREPRESENTING where things are in the picture INTENTIONALLY to emphasize your SUSPICION of the filming. That is wrong, and yet still will not admit, apologize, and move on.

TAM
Click to expand...

Why is this not especially surprising? bs is the troll to our billy goats gruff. Given his track record, he deserves not a whit of attention. At least Ultima and Steven Lupo Grossi provided an element of (unintentional) humour.
 
T.A.M. said:
Lets look at the wording bill...




I have bolded the wording.

1. The the "blank uninteresting wall of WTC2" is NO CLOSER to the CENTER of the screen then the burning area of WTC1.

2. WTC1 is no more to the periphery then WTC2. They are both EQUIDISTANT from the center of the screen horizontally.

As for the rest of the paranoid unsubstantiated speculation, well I will let all the onlookers judge that as well.

Fact is bill, you are MISREPRESENTING where things are in the picture INTENTIONALLY to emphasize your SUSPICION of the filming. That is wrong, and yet still will not admit, apologize, and move on.

TAM
Click to expand...

1. But don't you find it remarkable that a blank wall gets 50% of th attention ? Especially when that blank wall is about to be hit by a 767 travelling at 500 mph ?

2. But no less either TAM. They may be equidistant but they are not equally interesting at that moment before any jet has hit WTC2 and it is still just a blank wall.

So as you say, let the concerned citizens view the above video themselves and see what they think.
 
parky76 said:
Don't EVER call a Mets fan.....a "Yank".

:)
Click to expand...

fitzgibbon, "Yank" certainly is not the term for our southern neighbours anyway. I am sure that you are aware that the proper term is "Yoo-all":D

bill smith said:
The best thing to do is to allow the concerned vitizens who are no doubt looking in to make their own decision on that. My intuition tells me that he is there to film WTC2. The undamaged builing.
Click to expand...

Well, bill I did look and TAM is correct. WTC 2 is closer to the camera, and therefore looks bigger, than WTC 1, however the center of both buildings appear at about the 1/3 space from either side. The framing of the shot is therefore as the common wisdom would be for shooting any subject. That is to put the subject approximately 1/3 of the way from either side.

To characterise WTC 1 as being on the periphery is complete and utter bunk.

Its quite OBVIOUS that he was shooting the burning building. Yes a better shot would have been on the far side of WTC 1 but one cannot choose where one is going to be when a catastrophe occurs so one gets the shot that presents itself.

Your 'intuition' is quite apparently prejudiced by your political view. You see what you want to see.
 
bill smith said:
1. But don't you find it remarkable that a blank wall gets 50% of th attention ? Especially when that blank wall is about to be hit by a 767 travelling at 500 mph ?
Click to expand...
NO, that blank wall is closer to the camera than is the wall of WTC 1. IF he had zoomed in on WTC 1 he would nt have been able to get the entire building in the shot, IF he had put WTC 1 in the center of the shot, WTC 2 would still be bigger than WTC 2(because its closer) and this would NOT be good videographer style.

2. But no less either TAM. They may be equidistant but they are not equally interesting at that moment before any jet has hit WTC2 and it is still just a blank wall.
Click to expand...

See above

So as you say, let the concerned citizens view the above video themselves and see what they think.
Click to expand...

As a person who works with videographers every single day of my employment I can tell you that there is absolutly nothing wrong with this shot.
I say again that a better shot of WTC 1 would have been from the far side so that it would be in the foreground but AGAIN I mention that one gets the shot from where one is at the time something like this happens.

What's next for you bill, you going to critisize 'caught on camera' police videos on TLC?
 
jaydeehess said:
fitzgibbon, "Yank" certainly is not the term for our southern neighbours anyway. I am sure that you are aware that the proper term is "Yoo-all":D
Click to expand...

I think that "Yoo-all" is fairly specific to our southern neighbours hailing from in and around Kentucky transitioning to "Y'all" as one progresses further south (as in "Y'llcumbaknowyahear?".

The northerners seem to respond to "Hey! You!" or (depending on the particular area) "Stop! Police!"

HTH
Fitz

/derail :D BS-EG
 
With the best will in the world and speaking as somebody who is reluctant to believe in no-planes I have a serious problem believing that the above Naudet 2 video of a 150-ton plane flying through 33 x 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' steel box columns without shedding even a single gram of paper-thin aluminium can be authentic. I am shaking my head here.

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone

http://nomoregames.net/presentation...al_August_07.ppt_files/slide0049_image039.png Wingtip Snaps


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYkaoC6LO8 Damage from bird
 
bill smith said:
1. But don't you find it remarkable that a blank wall gets 50% of th attention ? Especially when that blank wall is about to be hit by a 767 travelling at 500 mph ?

2. But no less either TAM. They may be equidistant but they are not equally interesting at that moment before any jet has hit WTC2 and it is still just a blank wall.

So as you say, let the concerned citizens view the above video themselves and see what they think.
Click to expand...

What I would say is that at that moment he is centered on the towers as a unit. One is on fire, one is not. That is all I see in it. Sorry, but I do not enter into it with the same paranoid mindset. To me, the video is not unusual in terms of how it was filmed, the response after the impacts, or anything for that matter.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom