• 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

bardamu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they were film-makers, who had enough experience to follow the Rule of Thirds semi-instinctively. Did you need them to be incompetent for 9/11 not to have been an inside job?

Dave
 
one of the Naudet brothers could have been easily killed when the 1st tower collapsed. i find it insane to suggest that they somehow had advanced knowledge of the attacks.

if the "NWO" let them know before-hand, so that they would film the thing, why the #### would they then go into the damn buildings????

makes zero sense truthers. zero sense. please try applying just a wee bit of common sense to your ideas.

this is why Truthers make up only .001% of the USA. Cause only .001% of America are stupid enough to believe such crap.

now, where is Algebra34 and his evidence that 175 and 11 were NOT identified by plane parts from NYC?
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Or maybe they were film-makers, who had enough experience to follow the Rule of Thirds semi-instinctively. Did you need them to be incompetent for 9/11 not to have been an inside job?

Dave
Click to expand...
Exactly. Professional and most semi-professional photographers/videographers can frame a shot without having to think twice about it.
 
bardamu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the film? I doubt it. You don't know what you are talking about.
 
bump for bardamu

I don't think that you responded to this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to be focused on some video thingie, when lots of real, live people saw and HEARD planes over Manhattan. Could you please address this?
carlitos said:
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
Click to expand...
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Exactly. Professional and most semi-professional photographers/videographers can frame a shot without having to think twice about it.
Click to expand...

The bardamus of the world never realise why it is that well-framed shots seem pleasing on some level they don't understand. It's only when it's pointed out to them that they see it and they assume that every professional photographer/cameraman must likewise struggle to keep that front-of-mind.
 
carlitos said:
I don't think that you responded to this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to be focused on some video thingie, when lots of real, live people saw and HEARD planes over Manhattan. Could you please address this?
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to hear his explanation for this one too. No planers usually mumble something about mass hysteria or brain washing as they are walking away when faced with this. It's when their crazy REALLY starts showing through.
 
TruthersLie said:
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).
Click to expand...

Is there a precedent for this bullet-shaped ejecta?


TruthersLie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you keep pointing out that the camera was zoomed in.


Dave Rogers said:
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?
Click to expand...

The emerging object was shaped roughly like a bullet, rather than a trumpet. Some expelled dust (squibs) appears to have obeyed the inverse square law, while other expelled dust (nose out) appears to have done the very opposite.


Dave Rogers said:
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?
Click to expand...

In a low-res compressed copy of the video some of the edge pixels might flip over to the background colour in one part of the image but not in another part. That's why broadcast-quality footage could help to answer the questions and that's why it's mainly the no-planers who want to see broadcast-quality footage.


jaydeehess said:
Indeed, the 'squib' dust exits a window and encounters essentially dead air and thus it fans out as would be expected.

The dust, smoke and debris exiting with the engine are all neccessarily behind the engine itself which is moving at 100 MPH(IIRC) as it comes through the side of the building and carries with it a column of moving air as it punches through it(the air that is). The trailing dust and smoke are within that column of moving air thus they follow the engine in much the same manner that dust or paper will follow a car as it passes by.
Click to expand...

Are there no limits to your imagination?


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...

The story of the Naudet brothers that day is one long series of coincidences. They were filming a fire crew who were called out (on a false alarm) to one of the few spots in the area with a perfect view of the north face of the North Tower - just in time to catch the first plane crash.

The fact that he's not distracted by that fearsome noise is definitely suspect. I don't bother much with the disappearing wings, because it can be argued that similar-coloured pixels might have blended together and, in any case, I don't understand how even a fake plane could lose a wing or why they would release the video if it did.


fitzgibbon said:
The bardamus of the world never realise why it is that well-framed shots seem pleasing on some level they don't understand. It's only when it's pointed out to them that they see it and they assume that every professional photographer/cameraman must likewise struggle to keep that front-of-mind.
Click to expand...

A few seconds earlier they were rather unaesthetically focused on the damage to the North Tower, then they zoomed out just in time to create a harmonious composition showing the plane hitting the South Tower in accordance with the Golden Mean.
 
bardamu said:
The fact that he's not distracted by that fearsome noise is definitely suspect. I don't bother much with the disappearing wings, because it can be argued that similar-coloured pixels might have blended together and, in any case, I don't understand how even a fake plane could lose a wing or why they would release the video if it did.


A few seconds earlier they were rather unaesthetically focused on the damage to the North Tower, then they zoomed out just in time to create a harmonious composition showing the plane hitting the South Tower in accordance with the Golden Mean.
Click to expand...

He sounds like a competent camerman to me.
 
bardamu:
What's your point? If it wasn't what all the eyewitnesses saw (including a friend of mine that has it on video) then what was it? How did they do it?

ETA If you are just suggesting foreknowledge then tell me so I can punch my friend in the face.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
The emerging object was shaped roughly like a bullet, rather than a trumpet. Some expelled dust (squibs) appears to have obeyed the inverse square law, while other expelled dust (nose out) appears to have done the very opposite.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you imagine the inverse square law to be, or in what way you think it's relevant to a phenomenon that's clearly limited in the angle over which it has an effect, but it seems that you're saying that dust expelled by overpressure during a building collapse behaves differently, and appears different, to a mixture of dust, deflagrating jet fuel and solid debris with some significant initial momentum. Well, duh.

bardamu said:
In a low-res compressed copy of the video some of the edge pixels might flip over to the background colour in one part of the image but not in another part. That's why broadcast-quality footage could help to answer the questions and that's why it's mainly the no-planers who want to see broadcast-quality footage.
Click to expand...

The low-res compression artefacts wouldn't be correlated in any deterministic way to the lateral position of the image on the screen, so there would be no reason for the emerging object to be consistently different to the pre-impact object. And these effects would be limited to the edge pixels; the difference was clear and obvious without having to look on a single pixel scale.

And the whole no-planer hypothesis is utterly idiotic, of course, which is why the majority of the truth movement thinks you're government disinformation agents.

Dave
 
bardamu said:
In a low-res compressed copy of the video some of the edge pixels might flip over to the background colour in one part of the image but not in another part. That's why broadcast-quality footage could help to answer the questions and that's why it's mainly the no-planers who want to see broadcast-quality footage.
Click to expand...

Here's a concept for all you no-planers: pool your pennies and license the footage. Radical concept, eh? :boggled:
 
DGM said:
And I can't even imagine the unforgettable image that had to be. I'll never figure out the reasoning and mindset of the "no planer".
Click to expand...

The No-Planers don't bother me as much as the no victims does.

Yeah, it was a sight I could have gone my entire life without ever seeing again. Ever. Even watching them on the web is chilling.
 
Is our newest no planer STILL arguing about lossy anomalous video images instead of trying to figure out why thousands of people saw something he claims didn't exist?
 
Hmmm...

So, steel is stronger than aluminum, and airplanes are made of aluminum, so there is no way an airplane could penetrate a steel building. Is that the argument?

'Cause if so, keratin is stronger than lead, and bullets are made of lead, so there is no way a bullet could penetrate a structure infused with keratin, such as skin.

Congrats, truthers, you just proved that bullets are harmless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom