Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[A W Smith]

a bit to "hero making" makes billy gurl look in the mirror too much

I've seen it before. It's a bit too hero-making for me. I thnk a fireman is no more special than a cop or a soldier for instance, yet there is no song and dance about them. I can only take so much of that kind of stuff at one sitting.

kinda makes you realize what a complete fool you are? thats ok billy gurl. There are plenty of people who are not cowards reading this thread that will view it. Aint that right Billy gurl? Makes ya feel kinda "special" in a loathsome sort of way? don't it? Your post is very revealing. It tells us how uncomfortable and insecure you are with yourself. Your need to diminish hero's down to your level shows it is quite obvious. It's what trolls do when they have nothing else.

 

[carlitos]

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.

Oh. My. God. I missed this before. Do you really believe this? Are you aware that "Heiwa" is clinically insane?

 

[Arus808]

No-planers are at the bottom of the Truth totem pole.

no, those who pass on the "viscisms" crap is at the bottom of the totem pole. No planers are just above them.

 

[apathoid]

Oh. My. God. I missed this before. Do you really believe this? Are you aware that "Heiwa" is clinically insane?

I wonder if bardamok knows that Heiwa has compared the WTC to pizza boxes, lemons, matchboxes, sponges, sawdust and glue, ABC baby blocks, and he even said that that if you jump on your scale, it won't read any higher than your body weight.

Do you agree with any of that bardamu?

Don't forget, we are still anxiously awaiting your debunking of all of WTC plane impact eyewitnesses.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

no, those who pass on the "viscisms" crap is at the bottom of the totem pole. No planers are just above them.

Ok, that explains alot! Thanks!

 

[MIKILLINI]

Heading for the WTC for a look-see like most people would. But where are the videos of the crowds ?

Don't ya think in terms of a conspiracy inside job, the conspirators would video a crowd reaction for dramatic effect instead of the drama unfolding before the crowd, or don't you think at all Bill?

 

[MIKILLINI]

The average camera user will film the hole for a while and then start looking for other stuff to film....like the crowd. Just not in this case.

What evidence do you have to make this comparison? Is there a similar event like 9/11 that was filmed?

What do you think I should get out of it ?

Willful ignorance prevents one from realizing anything.

In terms of the jref a Troll is a fisherman who draws some bait through a cloud of fish hoping for some bites.

A fly fisherman is one who spots a particular fish rise and sets out to take him.

Fair comment I reckon.

In terms of laziness and ignorance, a person who is lazy and ignorant is lazy and ignorant.
Fair comment I reckon.

 

[bardamu]

Gather your pennies, no-planer. Truth costs..

The only thing you've proved in this thread so far is that your sympathies lie with the rich and powerful. FOX won't sell that footage at any price, if they haven't destroyed it already.

No planers don't even need the nose out footage - it's just icing on the cake.

I just came across this link. It shows how the WTC walls were constructed and shows in detail the damage that was done by the impact of the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c

How old is the person who made that video?

I linked this before, so I can only guess that you missed it. There are dozens and dozens of quotes, all linked with sourcing. How do you respond to this?

LINK

Anecdotes fail when they are contradicted by hard evidence.

We aren't talking about them. It's obvious to anyone with a brain cell or two that not everyone in Lower Manhattan would be in position to see the impacts. We are talking about the thousands that did see them. Yes, them. Proceed.

You mean the thousands of people like photographer David Handschuh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmMZQFRzFY

He appears to have been in the same general area as the Naudet's.

Does anyone else think it's funny that these guy's won't talk to eyewitnesses and demand media interviews knowing full well (as they claim) they are in on it.

Have you heard of Jeff Hill?

Just taking the scientific method for a moment, eyewitness testimony is the least persuasive. The mounds and mounds of documentary and physical evidence make eyewitness testimony regarding these events completely moot. And yet, there are still thousands of eyewitnesses anyway, most of whose stories fit the actual events of the day. I remember that there was one shop that had a great view of the towers and something like 30 or 40 people in that one location all saw the second plane hit. Boggles the mind.

Don't forget that the testimony of these 30 or 40 people is completely moot.

Ace Baker doesn't know why his theory isn't worth either the breath it takes to say it nor the energy to listen to it. Neither you nor he nor any other no-planer have come up with any other explanation for eyewitnesses other than they're in on it or they're duped.

If you had any real evidence, you wouldn't need to rely on fake or traumatized eyewitnesses.

No wonder other 'truthers' distance themselves from your special sort of wack!

Do I see an alliance forming between the debunkers and the planehuggers?

Oh. My. God. I missed this before. Do you really believe this? Are you aware that "Heiwa" is clinically insane?

Are you aware that to be called clinically insane on the JREF forum is a good indication that you're on the right track?

I wonder if bardamok knows that Heiwa has compared the WTC to pizza boxes, lemons, matchboxes, sponges, sawdust and glue, ABC baby blocks, and he even said that that if you jump on your scale, it won't read any higher than your body weight.

Do you agree with any of that bardamu?

I agree that column ends and rubble can't destroy the load-bearing structure underneath. When I was here earlier this year, somebody set out to explain what would happen when the cross-beams in the core of the upper block met the cross-beams in the core of the lower block, but all he did was waffle.

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.

Bill, I'll put something together and post it later for the benefit of the few honest people here who want to get to the bottom of this. I haven't even read the other threads for two days. This is the subject they fear most.

 

[dtugg]

No-planer, how badly does it suck for you that most of your fellow twoofers think that you are insane or disinfo?

 

[BigAl]

You mean the thousands of people like photographer David Handschuh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmMZQFRzFY

He appears to have been in the same general area as the Naudet's.

Why do you cite Handschuh?

Here's his own web page for 9/11.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/int_handschuh.htm

Do you really believe that Handschuh supports your claims of no planes at WTC?

If you do, what is your belief based on?

 

[fitzgibbon]

The only thing you've proved in this thread so far is that your sympathies lie with the rich and powerful.

Ahh! Telling you to man-up, quit kvetching and license the footage (which for a short shot like that typically is a 3-figure sum [tape stock included]) and you think I'm bedding down with the Illuminati?

Nice dodge.

FOX won't sell that footage at any price, if they haven't destroyed it already.

Obviously they haven't or you couldn't have made this comment:

There was a blob heading towards the towers, but it's not clear whether that was shown live or not. Just before the impact they switch cameras to a shot that just catches the edge of the explosion. In the FOX archives, they appear to have replaced the 'nose-out' footage with a similar shot.

So clearly from your own post, you claim to have actually seen Fox's broadcast-quality copy of the footage in question and clearly enough to accuse FOX's archivists and librarians of having replaced the shot with something else. Got proof?

And clearly the footage (messed-with or not) is (or was as of six days ago) available to be licensed and viewed. So why your reticence about licensing? Anything you put out that backs up your whack-job claim would garner you so much media attention and so many offers of paid speaking engagements (not to mention the adoration and barely-contained lust of nubile women and MILFs everywhere) that it'd be worth the cost 10 times over.

No planers don't even need the nose out footage - it's just icing on the cake.

No-planers need every scrap, every ounce, every scintilla of help they can get. The "nose-out" footage is just preventing them from admitting that they their 'cake' is as thick and robust as the sheen of oil on water.

If you had any real evidence, you wouldn't need to rely on fake or traumatized eyewitnesses.

If you had any real evidence, you wouldn't need to rely on low-res video while decrying all witnesses as "fake" and "traumatized". Glad to see the quality of individual that arrays themselves under the no-planer banner.

Small wonder your presence is avoided by other 'truthers'. You guys are the skunks that put an unpleasant odour up the nose of other skunks.

 

[carlitos]

Anecdotes fail when they are contradicted by hard evidence.

Indeed.

 

[Thunder]

No-planer, how badly does it suck for you that most of your fellow twoofers think that you are insane or disinfo?

Galileo, who figured out that the Earth was not at the center of the Universe, was also ridiculed.

 

[Seymour Butz]

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Copyofplanepartrf20-full.jpg

waypastvne is a debunker at ATS.

Does he know that you're pirating his photos?

 

[dafydd]

Oh. My. God. I missed this before. Do you really believe this? Are you aware that "Heiwa" is clinically insane?

Birds of a feather....etc.

 

[bill smith]

The only thing you've proved in this thread so far is that your sympathies lie with the rich and powerful. FOX won't sell that footage at any price, if they haven't destroyed it already.

No planers don't even need the nose out footage - it's just icing on the cake.




How old is the person who made that video?




Anecdotes fail when they are contradicted by hard evidence.




You mean the thousands of people like photographer David Handschuh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmMZQFRzFY

He appears to have been in the same general area as the Naudet's.




Have you heard of Jeff Hill?




Don't forget that the testimony of these 30 or 40 people is completely moot.




If you had any real evidence, you wouldn't need to rely on fake or traumatized eyewitnesses.




Do I see an alliance forming between the debunkers and the planehuggers?




Are you aware that to be called clinically insane on the JREF forum is a good indication that you're on the right track?




I agree that column ends and rubble can't destroy the load-bearing structure underneath. When I was here earlier this year, somebody set out to explain what would happen when the cross-beams in the core of the upper block met the cross-beams in the core of the lower block, but all he did was waffle.




Bill, I'll put something together and post it later for the benefit of the few honest people here who want to get to the bottom of this. I haven't even read the other threads for two days. This is the subject they fear most.

This and a certain Lady scientist that I won't name because the mere mention brings them clamouring And raging from miles around..

 

[T.A.M.]

no bill, you WOODnt!

TAM

 

[bill smith]

no bill, you WOODnt!

TAM

Aw...you saw clean through me TAM....

 

[bardamu]

What is (or are) he strongest pieces of evidence for no-planes ?

For me, Bill, the strongest evidence is the positioning of the TV cameras at the time of the second plane hit. It's hard to know exactly how many different cameras there were, but it's at least 16 and they were all on the north side of the WTC, so none of them filmed the impact. That meant that all the live shots could be kept relatively simple by making the planes disappear behind the buildings. You only need to watch the first 15 minutes or so of each channel in the archives to confirm it. The debunkers will say that's EXACTLY HOW YOU'D EXPECT the TV cameras to be positioned as they covered the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. They won't even admit it's a coincidence.

The position of Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 are especially suspect. This is what I learned from Ace Baker's research:

Creating a convincing live composite of the 9/11 airplane event requires several important attributes that simplify the job enough to be doable.

1. Very brief appearance and disappearance of plane.
2. High contrast between sky and tower
3. Plane path is across sky only.
4. Plane will disappear across straight vertical edge.
5. All surfaces requiring airplane shadows are hidden.
6. Actual impact point is hidden.
7. Exploding walls are hidden.
8. Camera is as stable as possible.
9. No panning, tilting, zooming or focusing while airplane is on screen

Violating any one of these 9 requirements makes realistic live compositing impossible. How likely is it that all 9 happened by chance, on both shots?

Compositionally, Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 are nearly identical. Both shots are from a mechanically stabilized helicopter platform. In both shots the helicopter is drifting slowly and steadily to the left. In both shots there is no zooming, tilting, panning or focusing while the camera is on screen. Both show a plane entering from the right side of the screen. Both have a straight, vertical, high contrast tower edge and clear sky to the right. In both shots, the plane crosses in less than 1.5 seconds, and disappears behind the edge. In both shots the (exploding) south and east faces of WTC2 are hidden.

Both shots satisfy all of the requirements for a doable live composite. The only compositional difference is that in Chopper 7 and the plane appears to approach from an angle, in Chopper 5 the plane crosses perpendicular to the camera view.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html

The beauty of this evidence is that the quality of the video is irrelevant.

Another coincidence I noticed in the ABC archives is that about 3 minutes before the plane comes in, the chopper is in more or less the right position for the shot, but then it wanders off to the south side, looks at the wall that's about to be hit by the plane, then flies back just in time to film the event. You can see that clip in the high-quality section of the archives:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_1st_reports.html

It's worth reading an article by Gerald Holmgren on the risks of using real planes. It's quite old now but still relevant, although he makes some assumptions about missiles.

http://www.911closeup.com

I'll leave it at that for now but there's a lot more to back it up, like eyewitnesses and fake plane parts.

 

[TruthersLie]

<snort><snicker>

oh and can't forget
<facepalm>