Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[BigAl]

Sure... I will admit that there are quite a few people on Naudet's video. Is it ONLY Naudet's video where hey are to be found on t though what with he deep suspicions that the Naudets are Shills.

And of course I am VERY ntersted how the Naudet brothers got so far apart so quickly. They were seaking -in French- seconds before. So BOTH Naudets got seperate shots of the second plane live ? What are the chances of that I wonder.

So what? It still appears that you have not seen the film end-to-end.

 

[Thunder]

i think its time to do justice for the victims of 9-11, and all of us put BS on ignore.

 

[carlitos]

bump for bardamu

THIS IS NOT A QUESTION ABOUT VIDEO FOOTAGE. POSTERS IN THIS THREAD SAW PLANES HIT THE TOWER IN PERSON.

I read back through the thread, but I can't find where bardamu gives his explanation for the massive number of eye witnesses who saw the planes impact the WTC buildings. Did I miss it?

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?

Originally Posted by carlitos
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.

Please address this. "They were duped" is not an answer. Thank you in advance.

 

[bardamu]

I find the female comentators in the attached clip fascinating. Was that ....EXPLOSiON REALLY in the other building ? Why....you might be right. Maybe it IS in the other building. It's hard to tell isn't it ? And is that a new live ......picture of...??? ....maybe of a plane hitting ......another plane lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5973253241813970942#

The girls in the second one sound false. If you look closely, though, you can see something moving towards the towers in the first video. In the archives you can see it clearly. It seems there might have been four live shots of a plane.

I read back through the thread, but I can't find where bardamu gives his explanation for the massive number of eye witnesses who saw the planes impact the WTC buildings. Did I miss it?

They were duped? That's IT? Ludicrous.

You wouldn't have the slightest bit of evidence for this, or course.

Several of my friends were among the hundreds of thousands duped in your scenario.

I'm interested in what the eyewitnesses said on the day, not after they'd seen the videos repeated ad nauseam on TV. Here's why:

Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts

ScienceDaily (Sep. 15, 2009) — Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened.

Associate Professor Dr Kimberley Wade from the Department of Psychology led an experiment to see whether exposure to fabricated footage of an event could induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did.

In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914110537.htm

he has a pre-conceived notion of what happened that day, and he refuses to allow any evidence, regardless of its source, to convince him otherwise.

this is one reason why 9-11 Truth has failed. because many of them simply refuse to open their eyes.

this is also why many people have compared 9-11 Truth to a cult, or a religion. because soo many Truthers simply refuse to accept anything that may counter their pre-determined truths.

You think truthers have a preconceived notion of what happened on 9/11? Most truthers have drastically changed their opinion, at some point during the last 8 years, about what really happened that day. They did so after being presented with evidence that disproves the official story. Virtually all no planers once believed planes hit the towers. How can that be described as preconceived? In contrast, you people still claim to believe exactly what you were told the day it happened, in spite of the truth staring you in the face.

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.

This is your problem. You imagine that a Boeing 767 is a solid body.

Are you Ace Baker or are you just heavily influenced by him?

I use his research because he has proved beyond reasonable doubt that no planes hit the towers. I also use Heiwa's research because he has proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that the towers couldn't have collapsed due to the top section falling onto the bottom section.

Paranoid much?

I didn't really think he was Pomeroo, but some of you really do seem to think I've been here under a different name.

I'm waiting for that too,dtugg saw the plane hit the tower,is bardamu calling him a liar?

A debunker who tells lies? Are you kidding?

 

[jaydeehess]

post 337 bardamu
........
Plausible: It happens quite often that the wrong video source gets inadvertantly switched during a live, or live to tape, broadcast. If you watch network news you will see this occur often enough. ONE of the inputs on every switcher I have ever seen and/or worked with is 7.5 IRE black, another is colour bars.

Plausible: With an RF feed from a remote if that RF feed is interrupted due to loss of power in the receiver the signal goes black. Video processors may have a selection that goes to black rather than show a picture that is rolling or horizonatlly skewed in the case of RF interference between TX and RX. If there is RF interference of sufficient power the AGC of the reciever will drive the RF gain down as far as it can and no useful information will pass through the reciever, the reciever then outputs black or the switcher senses a loss of video and outputs black.\

Plausible: The Master Control automation had a switcher event that did not get cancelled when all of this began and when the TOD for that event came up it did what dumb computers do. It followed the last orders it had and switched to that source, at which source, of course, there was no video due to the day's events thus BLACK.

Yesterday we were taking a satellite feed from a national broadcaster. This was a clean feed of a movie (no logos, no commercials, there is ten seconds of black between segments) that we would broadcast later and although the audio was continuous, the video blanked out and went to black and came back a second or two later. This occured a few seconds before each break. (as I said the audio continued and the video came back, these were not the actual breaks) We called and were told that we were not the only station to alert them to the problem with this feed. A re-feed was set up and that went according to plan. YOU will never see that occur because this WAS NOT live. We did not get an explanation from Global TV as to why or how this happened and we don't ask. We don't need to know, we don't give a rat's south end why or how it happened, yet it is very similar to what you are complaining about with the Chopper video.
In fact something like this happens every week from once source or another, the video goes black, the audio goes silent, or only one track of audio is present, or a show segment gets sent twice with one segment missing (I.E. seg1, seg2, seg2, seg4, seg5,...) or the event gets missed completely. We never get an explanation for any of this, just a re-feed.
If its our screw-up we have to pay for a re-feed, if its on the other end the re-feed is free.

Any more questions?

So what? It still appears that you have not seen the film end-to-end.

No obviously he cares to rely instead on youtube slices which cannot be bothered with anything like the whole truth. "911 truth" after all is not concerned with the whole truth, its not even concerned with any actual truth, all it and bill are concerned with are snippets that can be twisted to support the 'truth' they have prejudged was in effect on 911.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Ace Baker hasn't proven anything other than having big 80s hair in the 21st century is a sign of mental illness. A mental illness pronounced in believing that a billion dollar conspiracy hatched by an all powerful government using space rays can be foiled by a loon whose greatest accomplishment would be creating music for a Barbie animated movie. A billion dollar conspiracy mind you that is hinged on a luma key process?

I find that Ace Baker is more accomplished at inspiring people's laughter than knowing jack about CGI.

 

[BigAl]

I'm interested in what the eyewitnesses said on the day, not after they'd seen the videos repeated ad nauseam on TV. Here's why:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914110537.htm

The archives of almost all the TV broadcasts from NYC are archived here. Have a ball. There are countless man-on-the-street interviews here.

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

 

[jaydeehess]

Sure... I will admit that there are quite a few people on Naudet's video. Is it ONLY Naudet's video where hey are to be found though what with the deep suspicions that the Naudets are Shills.

You asked for video of crowds of people watching between aircraft hits. I would imagine that after the second hit many of these people left the area though there were still a lot of people there when the first tower fell. Such video was provided. You concoct a tale of fakery such that would take several hours of editing to accomplish. You would have to already have a crowd shot with people looking up. Perhaps from some other occurance? Found one with these views anywhere else? Perhaps they are all CGI? Not in 2001, it would be difficult now.

We also have people here on this board who state that they were there and saw thousands of people, saw the planes hit.

You attempt to make all of this disappear by claiming that the Naudet's faked the footage of the crowds. However it is simply ludicrous to assume that on aTuesday morning with one Manhattan tower burning (pick any reason for that burning at all) with only slightly cool temperature and no rain or snow, only a few people would be standing about watching. An automobile accident can get a couple of dozen bystanders watching for chrissakes!

You are now also in the position of requiring that not only the Naudet's be in-on-it but so to all the firefighters in the video and other firefighters who know these men and could attest that they are lieing in the video, the entire Brass of the NYFD, the people on this forum who state they were there and saw what occured.
Add them to the list of in-on-it.

Furthermore, given that such an event is more than likely and indeed most probably, going to garner a large crowd, your contention that there were few people around would require that you produce video directly contradicting that which is seen in the Naudet video. From basically the same place surely someone has a video showing the sparse number of spectators you require for your ridiculous contentions? Produce them Bill.

 

[BigAl]

Sure... I will admit that there are quite a few people on Naudet's video. Is it ONLY Naudet's video where hey are to be found though what with the deep suspicions that the Naudets are Shills.

Only? Only? Here is the video of all the TV channels for 9/11. You'll see all the crowd shots you care to see if you take the time to look.

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Of course, you don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about seeing anything. You are a troll.

Bill is a perfect example of why there are no eyewitnesses to 9/11 in the Truth Movement.

 

[jaydeehess]

Only? Only? Here is the video of all the TV channels for 9/11. You'll see all the crowd shots you care to see if you take the time to look.

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Of course, you don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about seeing anything. You are a troll.

Bill is a perfect example of why there are no eyewitnesses to 9/11 in the Truth Movement.

Of course bill will want crowd shots between impacts but if there are people there after the second impact one can safely assume that there were people there before the second impact.

I do await Bills video between impacts showing the Naudet video to be a lie.

 

[bardamu]

No. The "debunkers" have been the ones to repeatedly have to point out that the image quality is low because of a myriad of reasons: repeated compression/decompression in the transmission/home presentation chain prior to recording, recording on a low-resolution consumer video format, digitising and manipulating the video from that format and finally uploading the manipulated footage to YouTube. All stages where resolution (and clarity) is lost.

That is why I earlier compared drawing any kind of conclusion from this particular example of that video to trying to draw accurate conclusions about things microscopic while peering through a microscope lense smeared with Vaseline.

I don't buy the idea that two disimilar objects could end up virtually indistinguishable in shape and have exactly the same hue simply because of reduced resolution and compression artifacting.

You're joking, right? Truthers are loath to pay for anything. They lob copyright video all around pell-mell with no consideration at all of compensating the copyright holder. Hell, look at how quick Loose Change stab #3 was uploaded to bittorrent sites. Within hours.

Broadcasters have no obligation to put every second of video out there just because you think they should. If you really want the footage, do what grown-ups do when they want something: they pay for it.

If there was a business model that made sense to selling DVDs of raw footage, I'm sure they would have been available long ago. And here's an extra bit of intel for you about DVDs: they're compressed video too. More lost resolution!

It's unreasonable for you to decry someone else for not giving you something for nothing. Again, pool your pennies, no-planers! Put your money where your mouths are! Is that really too much to expect from you?

Do you have a price in mind? How much is truth and justice worth?.

I think we can conclude that Steve Wright in one instance stepped outside his area of direct professional expertise. I don't know what Lawson's video expertise is but on the surface, his arguments appear sound.

Lawson seems to assume there's a layer mask over the towers AND a vertical wipe. Then he confuses the two. If people want to keep posting links to this video, they should explain what he's trying to say. Having said that, I don't think Simon Shack is clear about it either.

Would you be so kind as to transcribe (with time marks) where exactly Kai Simonsen said what you claim he said? Because I just listened to it and he didn't say that.

1:02
JH: So you did the zoom in on the towers just as the plane had hit?
KS: Well, I knew that the plane was coming in, because the pilot told me.
JH: What, you knew it was coming in towards the tower?
KS: Well, the pilot said that the guy was flying really low and he was heading for the tower. If you fly that low over the Hudson River, it's a very unusual occurrence in an aircraft of that size

Why would FOX TV prefer that he didn't comment? What harm could it do if there was nothing to hid? Shouldn't they be proud to have filmed the plane live, when some of their competitors missed it?

I could make a pig do aerobatics, smash into the WTC and emerge as a roast turkey and have it appear ballistically consistent. Doesn't mean that the WTC was brought down by a flying pig.

If that's what the government were claiming, you'd have gone a long way to disproving their story.

I already did. If you don't get it, I can't really make it any more obvious to you. Even devolving into monosyllabic wording wouldn't help and would only lead to added annoyance on mine.

Reported BTW

I didn't realise you could report somebody for proving you wrong. Could only happen in a post-9/11 world.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I don't buy the idea that two disimilar objects could end up virtually indistinguishable in shape and have exactly the same hue simply because of reduced resolution and compression artifacting.

Then you didn't comprehend the clear point I made about how motion compression works insofar as using predictive compression is concerned and dispensing with what is expected to be extraneous data.

That you don't "buy" it is proof of a closed mind. Fair enough. At least we know what we're dealing with here. And would you like to explain what the "two disimilar [sic] objects" are?

Do you have a price in mind? How much is truth and justice worth?.

Call FOX and price out the license. I don't work for FOX. And I'm not the one claiming "truth and justice" hasn't been already served. Your response to their license quote will demonstrate just how much YOU believe truth and justice is worth.

I await your response with FOX's quote.

I didn't realise you could report somebody for proving you wrong. Could only happen in a post-9/11 world.

Not what I reported you for. However, if thinking that gives you the warm-fuzzies, have at 'er. And you haven't proved anybody wrong here about anything, least of all me.

 

[carlitos]

The archives of almost all the TV broadcasts from NYC are archived here. Have a ball. There are countless man-on-the-street interviews here.

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

I really think that bardamu should spend some time looking at what the eyewitnesses saw that day, vs. posting more comments about video here. This event did not happen virtually; it happened in real life. Life is not a CGI.

 

[bardamu]

,,,and you know this how? Because you have seen hi-res orginals? I thought you said they were on VHS tape which is hardly hi-res in the first place.

I said hi-res originals might show that the two are identical. It would be nice to have access to a good copy.

What the H difference would that make?

To imitate a bullet exactly, it would have to flip over 180 degrees and come out perfectly horizontally.

In fact if you look at hi-res video of such things the trailing dust does follow the path of the bullet. The bullet looks like a bullet, the dust looks like a dust trail, and that dust trail follows the wake air flow of the bullet which tapers behind the bullet. In the case of the engine the dust does not look like a bullet, the engine looks like an engine (a basically cylindical object) with dust behind it. Why are you now trying to say that the dust preceeded the engine out the building?

Check out "Flour shot 2" on this page and pause it as the bullet exits the right side of the screen. What I see is a thin trail of flour along the path of the bullet and an elliptical flour dust cloud elongated along the path of the bullet.
You will, I expect, notice that there is an 'explosion' of flour following this moment immediatly after the bullet's passage, but of course this is a case of a homogeneous full bag of flour, very much unlike the towers which were largely air filled. The pressure build up in the bag of flour caused by the bullet's shock wave is what produces that 'explosion' of flour. In denser fluids such as the many other high speed bullet videos of fruit or soda cans being hit, this pressure will have an even greater effect in that explosion like event, and because of the greater mass of the particles and the fact that those particles are bonded to each other to begin with, there will be less or no trailing effect seen with dry dust particulates.

I was addressing the other theory, which seems to be suggesting that the dust was pushed out by the nose of the plane:

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).

The flour follows the bullet out of the other side. The trouble is, the nose out has the general shape of the nose and cockpit of the plane. What are the chances that the dust could take on that shape, or what are the chances that video artifacts could make it look that way?

Plausible: It happens quite often that the wrong video source gets inadvertantly switched during a live, or live to tape, broadcast. If you watch network news you will see this occur often enough. ONE of the inputs on every switcher I have ever seen and/or worked with is 7.5 IRE black, another is colour bars.

So somebody could have thrown a manual switch?

Plausible: With an RF feed from a remote if that RF feed is interrupted due to loss of power in the receiver the signal goes black. Video processors may have a selection that goes to black rather than show a picture that is rolling or horizonatlly skewed in the case of RF interference between TX and RX. If there is RF interference of sufficient power the AGC of the reciever will drive the RF gain down as far as it can and no useful information will pass through the reciever, the reciever then outputs black or the switcher senses a loss of video and outputs black.\

Plausible: The Master Control automation had a switcher event that did not get cancelled when all of this began and when the TOD for that event came up it did what dumb computers do. It followed the last orders it had and switched to that source, at which source, of course, there was no video due to the day's events thus BLACK.

By examining how quickly the switch to black was, can you judge which of these scenarios would be most likely? There was also a transmission black-out on WABC (and also fed to CNN) slightly earlier, and it seemed to happen just as the broadcast was being switched from one camera feed to another.

You assume that anything that travelled the width of the building had to hit a column? Why is that Bill? You do understand what, for instance "12 foot intervals" means, right?

The floors were at 12 foot intervals, not the columns.

Sure... I will admit that there are quite a few people on Naudet's video. Is it ONLY Naudet's video where hey are to be found though what with the deep suspicions that the Naudets are Shills

I heard a reporter for a TV channel say the police were moving everybody north, but I'm not sure what time that was.

 

[fitzgibbon]

The bardamus of the world think "The Matrix" is a documentary, carlitos.

 

[BigAl]

I said hi-res originals might show that the two are identical. It would be nice to have access to a good copy.




To imitate a bullet exactly, it would have to flip over 180 degrees and come out perfectly horizontally.

What are you getting at? We know the identities of the two aircraft that hit the WTC towers.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I said hi-res originals might show that the two are identical. It would be nice to have access to a good copy.

Gather your pennies, no-planer. Truth costs. And we already have bs insisting FOX's 'fixed' the aircheck thereby setting up an excuse as to why real reality doesn't tie-in with his chreished YouTube reality.

 

[fitzgibbon]

And bardamu doing likewise in this post that preceded bs's

 

[apathoid]

I really think that bardamu should spend some time looking at what the eyewitnesses saw that day, vs. posting more comments about video here. This event did not happen virtually; it happened in real life. Life is not a CGI.

They were all duped and/or liars, just like all the witnesses at the Pentagon. Personally, I think no-planers are all bat-poo crazy, but I'd like to see a little rationale for these insane beliefs. C'mon....bardamu, lets have an explanation that passes the laugh test.

O/T - anyone notice that truthers always have these weird random nicknames?

 

[bill smith]

The girls in the second one sound false. If you look closely, though, you can see something moving towards the towers in the first video. In the archives you can see it clearly. It seems there might have been four live shots of a plane.








I'm interested in what the eyewitnesses said on the day, not after they'd seen the videos repeated ad nauseam on TV. Here's why:



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914110537.htm




You think truthers have a preconceived notion of what happened on 9/11? Most truthers have drastically changed their opinion, at some point during the last 8 years, about what really happened that day. They did so after being presented with evidence that disproves the official story. Virtually all no planers once believed planes hit the towers. How can that be described as preconceived? In contrast, you people still claim to believe exactly what you were told the day it happened, in spite of the truth staring you in the face.




This is your problem. You imagine that a Boeing 767 is a solid body.




I use his research because he has proved beyond reasonable doubt that no planes hit the towers. I also use Heiwa's research because he has proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that the towers couldn't have collapsed due to the top section falling onto the bottom section.




I didn't really think he was Pomeroo, but some of you really do seem to think I've been here under a different name.




A debunker who tells lies? Are you kidding?

bardamu, his is an important issue to me and to everybody here. What is (or are) he strongest pieces of evidence for no-planes ? I tend to believe hat no-planes is a deliberate attempt to mislead but at the same time , I am captivated by the strength of some of the evidence. Can you help ? Send me a private message if you like. Thanks.