• 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

bill smith said:
Yeah, well you see the plane is really just a big bag of air. It weighs 150 tons if you nelt it down into a single block but in reality that 150 tons is thinly spread out not unlike an aluminium cobweb by comparison with the massive steel of the building.(See photos above). Otherwise the plane could not fly.

Aluminium does not cut steel. That would simply be tantamount to the bread cutting the knife. Especially paper-thin aluminium.
Click to expand...
I think what bill smith is really trying to say here is, I'll post something then sit back enjoy all the attention I get.
 
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...

This is, of course, one side of a classic truther heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument. It's highly suspicious that there were so few pictures of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. It's also highly suspicious that there were so many of flight 175 hitting WTC2. Someone pointed out yesterday that it's highly suspicious that so few of the videos of flight 175 hitting WTC2 showed the impact face. Now, we learn that it's highly suspicious that one of the films of flight 175 did show the impact face. If you're sufficiently ignorant of the difference between a priori and a posteriori reasoning, everything can be claimed to look suspicious.

I find it highly suspicious that bill smith claims not to understand all this.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is, of course, one side of a classic truther heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument. It's highly suspicious that there were so few pictures of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. It's also highly suspicious that there were so many of flight 175 hitting WTC2. Someone pointed out yesterday that it's highly suspicious that so few of the videos of flight 175 hitting WTC2 showed the impact face. Now, we learn that it's highly suspicious that one of the films of flight 175 did show the impact face. If you're sufficiently ignorant of the difference between a priori and a posteriori reasoning, everything can be claimed to look suspicious.

I find it highly suspicious that bill smith claims not to understand all this.

Dave
Click to expand...

In this case it is highly suspicious as any observer can check for himself by looking for the short video labled 'Naudet 2' on the previous page to this one.

By the way, how are we fixed on the Chopper 5 video ? Are you still clinging to the pathetic statement that it was not broadcast live on 9/11 ? You know the video where the light aluminium plane goes right through the building ? Did you listen to that amazing conversation with the cameraman from chopper 5 ?

That video can be seen in post #227 also on the previous page and is entitled 'Oh my Goodness'.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
In this case it is highly suspicious as any observer can check for himself by looking for the short video labled 'Naudet 2' on the previous page to this one.

By the way, how are we fixed on the Chopper 5 video ? Are you still clinging to the pathetic statement that it was not broadcast live on 9/11 ? You know the video where the light aluminium plane goes right through the building ? Did you listen to that amazing conversation with the cameraman from chopper 5 ?

That video can be seen in post #227 also on the previous page and is entitled 'Oh my Goodness'.
Click to expand...

That video is centered on the two towers because, from where the cameraman was situated, if he centered on the burning tower the entire left side of the frame would've been filled with the nondescript brown building in the foreground. As it is the nondescript building is still in the frame but is as unobtrusive as it could be but it still takes up some of the video.

The aluminum airplane doesn't go through the building, it went into the building because of the mass of the fuel it was carrying. That mass was dispersed in the collision. The only things of note that went through the building was an engine, some of the landing gear and some of the now aerosolized fuel.

Here's a simple experiment for you. Get two 12 oz cans of of your beverage of choice. Take an unopened one and throw it as hard as you can at a galvanized metal garbage can. Note the damage to the garbage can. Now empty the second can of its fluid and throw that empty beverage container at the same garbage can as hard as you did the first one. Are the two damage results the same?
 
fitzgibbon said:
Can anyone tell me if bs is has attempted to follow through?
Click to expand...

This is the post of yours I was eferring to. #20 on page 1 of this thread.

'' This whole 'nose in/nose out' tripe just demonstrates that 'truthers' don't understand the concept of the video encoding/decoding that happens between upstream broadcaster and downstream home reception. Either that or they refuse to get it no matter how many small words are used to explain the process.

For the sake of bandwidth reduction, predictive encoding is used between frames to throw away information that is likely redundant. An object travelling from right to left on the screen can reasonably be expected to continue travelling right to left and the predicted extraneous data is eliminated. This is just fine for 99% of video that makes it to home receivers as the average viewer isn't going to be that discerning and they're certainly not going to be trying to do frame-by-frame analysis of an image that's had a good part of its original data smoothed-over.

Trying to do meaningful video analysis from a VHS recording digitised to a consumer-grade video editing software package and then uploaded to YouTube is like trying to analyse microbes through a microscope that has had Vaseline© smeared on all its internal and external optics.

The common thread is that both images are meaningless ''and have lost clarity.''

I was wondering if you'd like to expand on this a little ?
 
Sam.I.Am said:
That video is centered on the two towers because, from where the cameraman was situated, if he centered on the burning tower the entire left side of the frame would've been filled with the nondescript brown building in the foreground. As it is the nondescript building is still in the frame but is as unobtrusive as it could be but it still takes up some of the video.

The aluminum airplane doesn't go through the building, it went into the building because of the mass of the fuel it was carrying. That mass was dispersed in the collision. The only things of note that went through the building was an engine, some of the landing gear and some of the now aerosolized fuel.

Here's a simple experiment for you. Get two 12 oz cans of of your beverage of choice. Take an unopened one and throw it as hard as you can at a galvanized metal garbage can. Note the damage to the garbage can. Now empty the second can of its fluid and throw that empty beverage container at the same garbage can as hard as you did the first one. Are the two damage results the same?
Click to expand...

This looks like full penatration to me....and it doesn't look like an engine at all does it ? Keep watching . It has a few other oddities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQJ19ysTfU&feature=related
 
bill smith said:
By the way, how are we fixed on the Chopper 5 video ? Are you still clinging to the pathetic statement that it was not broadcast live on 9/11 ?
Click to expand...

I don't much care whether it was live or not. I've now seen people argue both sides, so I'm happy to retract any claim that it wasn't. It appears I don't know either way.

bill smith said:
You know the video where the light aluminium plane goes right through the building ?
Click to expand...

There is no such video. Your repeated insistence that the Chopper 5 video shows something it's known not to show is tantamount to a lie. In fact, you don't even believe it shows that yourself, as you've made clear.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
Yeah, well you see the plane is really just a big bag of air. It weighs 150 tons if you nelt it down into a single block but in reality that 150 tons is thinly spread out not unlike an aluminium cobweb by comparison with the massive steel of the building.(See photos above). Otherwise the plane could not fly.

Aluminium does not cut steel. That would simply be tantamount to the bread cutting the knife. Especially paper-thin aluminium.
Click to expand...

OH billy.

are you really going to keep repeating this bs?

I have linked you to a half dozen videos showing what happened. You can easily see in the images that the outer facing broke away under the momentum of the jet and it didn't cut it.

we both know this.. is this your irreducible delusion?
 
A nice small piece of steel... can it demolish a car?



What happened to the car? Better question... what happened to the steel?

Please pay attention billy.


Yet again you spew outright lies.. and your level of ignorance is absolutely amazing.


nose in engine out. Come on billy... actually use that small brain for something.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
fitzgibbon said:
A sterling example of multiple-generations of decompression/recompression uprezzed from a low-resolution analogue source.
Click to expand...
I will look timorrow but I think that you are horribly exposed in what you said earlier..
Click to expand...


Since bs is sparing (virtually to the point of avoidance altogether) with his 'answers', putting him on ignore is a way of saving on screen real estate that would otherwise be wasted.

Also, since three days ago he clearly said he was going to address the above-noted post two days ago and here he's been posting hither-and-nigh with not a whit of indication that he actually intends to follow-through on his promise (which does seem to be the bs modus operandi), then he's clearly without honour to boot and I find such individuals typically not above outright lies in furtherance of a point they might be trying to make.

Hence, killfile.
 
Dave Rogers said:
He's a truther. Reliability is for other people.

Dave
Click to expand...

Now Dave is it really fair to leave a fine suthen gennleman like Fitz in the dark about the fact that I alrady answered his post ages ago ? I mean he specifically asked you, yet it looks like you just let him carry on mithering about it.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Now Dave is it really fair to leave a fine suthen gennleman like Fitz in the dark about the fact that I alrady answered his post ages ago ? I mean he specifically asked you, yet it looks like you just let him carry on mithering about it.
Click to expand...

Your promise was to look into the subject yourself, not to reproduce his entire post and ask him to expand on it. But actually doing your own thinking would be a bit like hard work, wouldn't it?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Your promise was to look into the subject yourself, not to reproduce his entire post and ask him to expand on it. But actually doing your own thinking would be a bit like hard work, wouldn't it?

Dave
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with you letting Fitz down ?
 
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Naudet Brothers will have had the Rule of Thirds uppermost in mind as they pointed their camera at the blazing North Tower with chaos all around them. Maybe they imagined they were Ansel Adams photographing the Grand Canyon.


parky76 said:
throw an aluminum ball at 500 MPH at a piece of steel and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Would that be a solid aluminium ball or a hollow aluminium ball?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Your promise was to look into the subject yourself, not to reproduce his entire post and ask him to expand on it. But actually doing your own thinking would be a bit like hard work, wouldn't it?

Dave
Click to expand...

If any kind of informed response is coming, there was plenty there for him to source. He's handwaving. Isn't that a surprise? Never would've expected that! :rolleyes:
 
bardamu said:
Would that be a solid aluminium ball or a hollow aluminium ball?
Click to expand...

well, considering the outer layer of an airplane is MUCH thicker then a soda can, I'd say it should be a solid aluminum ball.

i can punch a dent into a can of coke. can i also punch a dent into an airplane? i surely doubt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom