Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[BigAl]

The fact does remain that three buildings were wired for demoliton yet only two were hit by planes. They cannot have planned to demolish WTC7 in the way that they finally did. It looks just ike a forced error as does the flight 93 fiasco. Maybe connected forced errors. 93 was held up on the runway and had it's takeoff delayed for an hour by a fire.

Just as a matter of interest, have a look at the attached layout. Would the cameras have been well positioned to take in a giant fireball from WTC7 at around the same time as the strike on WTC2 ?

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtccollapse/flash.htm

The cameras were not set up while Flight 93 was in the air. Why and how would the hijacker-pilots know they were going to be later that day?

 

[twinstead]

I suspect that although BigAl "believes in Al Qaeda" because he has looked at the evidence, bardamu doesn't "believe" simply because the existence of Al Qaeda is inconvenient to him. It's really a good example of the difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism.

But, that's fodder for another thread. Sorry for the derail. Got the guts, bardamu?

 

[BigAl]

I suspect that although BigAl "believes in Al Qaeda" because he has looked at the evidence, bardamu doesn't "believe" simply because the existence of Al Qaeda is inconvenient to him. It's really a good example of the difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism.

But, that's fodder for another thread. Sorry for the derail. Got the guts, bardamu?

Sorry. Once I put a user in the k00k file, I tend to read his posts in a context-free manor and If I see someting I have a solid response to, I let it rip.

bardamu is certainly in that file.

 

[TruthersLie]

<snipped because it is incoherent blathersings>

You believe in Al Qaeda?

Yes I do. And so does the vast majority of the rest of the world. Since I live in a muslim country, they know about Al Qaeda and are very aware of UBL.

But hey if you don't believe, please show us they don't exist and are just misunderstood, peaceful scapegoats.

Hop a flight to Islamabad or afghanistan (you can get round trip tickets for under $1500 US), and show us. By all means, go into the tribal regions and tell them that Al Qaeda doesn't exist.

But I figure you are too much of a pussy to do it... just like you are too much of a pussy to go into any FDNY firehouse and tell them they were in on it.

Internet commando for da twoof.

 

[twinstead]

bardamu is certainly in that file.

Indeed

 

[fitzgibbon]

Oh silly me! The resident no-planers have implied that they've seen the first-generation footage and deemed it 'fixed'.

Silly you. The Chopper 5 footage is only a tiny part of the evidence and it's not even the best. Maybe that's why debunkers like to spend so much time arguing over it.

Yet every time, they lead with it. Happened this time too (until wrapping in it proved just too radioactive even for no-planers). And if it's of so little consequence, how about you do a bullet-point post of no-planer proof from most compelling to least?

Or would that not be an "efficient" use of your time either?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Bardamu,please help an ignorant European.Could you please state in a coherent manner your explanation of the events that took place on 9/11?

Sorry, that wouldn't be an efficient use of my time.

Stundied! And leading the December pack already!

 

[fitzgibbon]

Who would think the six big networks in the television capital of the States would cover an inferno at the WTC with their cameras arranged in a semi circle? Did they imagine it was a theatre performance? Oops, there may be some truth in that.

Golly. I guess getting what angles they could MUST be indicative of a grand conspiracy. Would you care to plot-out on Google Maps this "semi circle"? Or would that not be "efficient" either?

They had three choppers between them and crews on the ground. These networks gather news all over the globe and they missed the biggest event in TV news history which happened 20 blocks down the road. At the time of the second plane crash, ABC's chopper was zooming in from the north west while the cameras at the studio were filming from the north. When the chopper was on the south side, 90 seconds before the plane appeared, why didn't the producer say to the crew: "Hey guys, stay over that side. None of the other networks are covering that angle. We have an exclusive here"? If he did, the crew might have answered: "Sorry boss, we have to get back to the other side so we can satisfy the nine necessary conditions for live video compositing."

And you assume that a studio director who's trying to herd his own cats in terms of cameras, reporters, tape, etc. is going to be monitoring the exact shots the competition is putting to air? And here's the gimme in that lob-ball: if the chopper had been there on the south side getting the shot you seem to want, 'truthers' would've claimed that was proof of ABC being 'in on it'!

Again, damned if you do.....

Oh and BTW? Would you care to share just what are supposed to be "the nine necessary conditions for live video compositing"? This should be good.


eta:

Oh are THESE supposed to be "the nine necessary conditions for live video compositing"?

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

So what you really mean is Ace Baker's rules not real rules. I mean rule #1 doesn't forestall me from having a porcine aviatrix. #2 is meaningless. Ditto #3. Ditto #4 unless we're suddenly in Las Vegas or "Blade Runner". #5 is a functional rewording of #3 and has as much meaning. #6 is meaningless. #7 is ridiculous. #8 is preferable as is #9 and are representative of sound and fury.

You believe in Al Qaeda?

I believe they exist. You clearly don't although I'm quite sure you'll handwave away any attempt to get you to specify anything more than that belief as not "efficient".

 

[fitzgibbon]

I second that,bardamu has no explanation.A coherent resume of the events that day from bill smith would be welcolme too,but i won't be holding my breath.

Thirded dafydd and seconded that bs won't provide anything approaching coherence.

 

[dafydd]

Cmon Bill,put your money where your mouth is,give me your version of the sequence of events.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The fact does remain that three buildings were wired for demoliton yet only two were hit by planes. They cannot have planned to demolish WTC7 in the way that they finally did.

Didn't you get the memo, bill? According to Danny Jowenko, WTC7 was the only building wired for demolition, and the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was completely unexpected to the conspirators. Apparently that's a completely coherent theory for the events of 9/11.

Dave

 

[carlitos]

bump for bardamu

bardamu,
You seem to have a different understanding of what is real than others do. Could you take another look at this, and see if you'd care to give it a go? I think it might be useful for some of us who aren't "getting" your point. Thanks!

I'd like to list some things. Could you please let us know (yes / no) whether they 'exist' for you? Thanks.

• Taj Mahal
• Eiffel Tower
• Chicago White Sox
• Pacific Ocean
• Barack H Obama
• The ostrich
• My next door neighbor

If the answer is "yes" for any of the above, I'm curious as to how you 'know' it exists.

If the answer is "no" for any of the above, I'm curious as to how you 'know' that it doesn't exist.

If you really want to impress me, you could apply the criteria above to:

• AA Flight 11 9/11/01
• UA Flight 75 9/11/01
• parky's Aunt 9/11/01
• Video footage of a plane over lower Manhattan on 9/11/01

Thanks!

 

[bardamu]

If you honestly believed that there was a genuine conspiracy, you'd be happy to suggest hypotheses, look at the criticisms of them, and use the results to formulate more robust hypotheses. The fact that you don't even think it's worth your time to try to do so, just makes it painfully obvious how intellectually bankrupt your entire movement is.

Yes, you'd love me to speculate on exactly what happened that day, then you could pick through my hypothesis and bog me down for ever more in irrelevant details. Well, my time is better spent searching for evidence and arguments I can use to demolish the official conspiracy theory, then use that knowledge to rub your noses in your own poo.

Didn't you get the memo, bill? According to Danny Jowenko, WTC7 was the only building wired for demolition, and the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was completely unexpected to the conspirators. Apparently that's a completely coherent theory for the events of 9/11.

That's because he goes along with the 19 hijackers fable and assumes the demolition of WTC7 was a last-minute insurance job.

The fact does remain that three buildings were wired for demoliton yet only two were hit by planes. They cannot have planned to demolish WTC7 in the way that they finally did. It looks just ike a forced error as does the flight 93 fiasco. Maybe connected forced errors. 93 was held up on the runway and had it's takeoff delayed for an hour by a fire.

Just as a matter of interest, have a look at the attached layout. Would the cameras have been well positioned to take in a giant fireball from WTC7 at around the same time as the strike on WTC2 ?

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtccollapse/flash.htm

The cameras pointing from the north would have been guaranteed to catch a giant fireball from WTC7. I'm not sure whether you're suggesting they were planning to crash flight 93 into the building or just fake it. Either way, it's just speculation and it gives the debunkers a straw man. The forced error might be connected to the report that 50 storeys had gone down at 10:45am while the area was still hidden by dust.

Yes. here's a small bit evidence as to why;

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09

http://911links.webs.com/index.htm

I suspect that although BigAl "believes in Al Qaeda" because he has looked at the evidence, bardamu doesn't "believe" simply because the existence of Al Qaeda is inconvenient to him. It's really a good example of the difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism.

But, that's fodder for another thread. Sorry for the derail. Got the guts, bardamu?

Al Qaeda was the name of the database that the CIA, MI6 and Mossad used to keep a list of their Islamic assets in the Middle East, who they used to destabilize the Soviet Union. According to Sibel Edmonds, they were still using those assets right up to 9/11.

Hop a flight to Islamabad or afghanistan (you can get round trip tickets for under $1500 US), and show us. By all means, go into the tribal regions and tell them that Al Qaeda doesn't exist.

That would be risky. The locals there are not too keen on Westerners now, since many of their women and children have been slaughtered by invaders claiming they were acting in my name.

Sorry. Once I put a user in the k00k file, I tend to read his posts in a context-free manor

One might say you're the lord of the context-free manor.

 

[TruthersLie]

Al Qaeda was the name of the database that the CIA, MI6 and Mossad used to keep a list of their Islamic assets in the Middle East, who they used to destabilize the Soviet Union. According to Sibel Edmonds, they were still using those assets right up to 9/11.

You should actually try to do any real research.

Al Qaeda does most definately exist.

That would be risky. The locals there are not too keen on Westerners now, since many of their women and children have been slaughtered by invaders claiming they were acting in my name.

Ah so just an internet commando for twoof who is a moral and ethical coward. You claim Al Q doesn't exist. Feel free to travel to those regions and prove it.

tell it to the folks Al Q has murdered all over the world. Tell that to the Mumbai bombing vicitms.

but you won't. After all you are a coward.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, you'd love me to speculate on exactly what happened that day, then you could pick through my hypothesis and bog me down for ever more in irrelevant details. Well, my time is better spent searching for evidence and arguments I can use to demolish the official conspiracy theory, then use that knowledge to rub your noses in your own poo.

But since you've been unable to find any evidence, you've made some up of your own. No, sorry, I apologise for crediting you with that level of originality; you've borrowed some that Ace Baker made up. As long as you refuse to even try to suggest a barely coherent theory of what actually happened, it's obvious that you have nothing to offer but the rather bizarre choice of face cream you're suggesting above.

That's because he goes along with the 19 hijackers fable and assumes the demolition of WTC7 was a last-minute insurance job.

Again, read the memo. You're supposed to think he realised WTC7 was a controlled demolition because he didn't know it had anything to do with 9/11, and that the '19 hijackers fable' would have prevented him from seeing that it was obviously a controlled demolition. Every time you get it wrong, you make David Ray Griffin cry.

Dave

 

[bardamu]

Oh are THESE supposed to be "the nine necessary conditions for live video compositing"?

So what you really mean is Ace Baker's rules not real rules. I mean rule #1 doesn't forestall me from having a porcine aviatrix. #2 is meaningless. Ditto #3. Ditto #4 unless we're suddenly in Las Vegas or "Blade Runner". #5 is a functional rewording of #3 and has as much meaning. #6 is meaningless. #7 is ridiculous. #8 is preferable as is #9 and are representative of sound and fury.

Sorry, I should have made it more explicit for the willfully dumb. You need to compare the live compositing of the plane's approach to the post-production compositing of the impacts. Only when the nine conditions are met is live compositing possible.

 

[BigAl]

Sorry, I should have made it more explicit for the willfully dumb. You need to compare the live compositing of the plane's approach to the post-production compositing of the impacts. Only when the nine conditions are met is live compositing possible.

What does this have to do with the fact that Boeing 767-223ER registration number N334AA and Boeing 767-222/ER registration number N612UA flown by Arab Islamists crashed into WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11?

We know this to a certainty even if we didn't have a single image of either actually crashing. In the context of all the evidence we have, your ankle biting about image fakery is meaningless.

 

[bill smith]

Yes, you'd love me to speculate on exactly what happened that day, then you could pick through my hypothesis and bog me down for ever more in irrelevant details. Well, my time is better spent searching for evidence and arguments I can use to demolish the official conspiracy theory, then use that knowledge to rub your noses in your own poo.




That's because he goes along with the 19 hijackers fable and assumes the demolition of WTC7 was a last-minute insurance job.




The cameras pointing from the north would have been guaranteed to catch a giant fireball from WTC7. I'm not sure whether you're suggesting they were planning to crash flight 93 into the building or just fake it. Either way, it's just speculation and it gives the debunkers a straw man. The forced error might be connected to the report that 50 storeys had gone down at 10:45am while the area was still hidden by dust.






Al Qaeda was the name of the database that the CIA, MI6 and Mossad used to keep a list of their Islamic assets in the Middle East, who they used to destabilize the Soviet Union. According to Sibel Edmonds, they were still using those assets right up to 9/11.




That would be risky. The locals there are not too keen on Westerners now, since many of their women and children have been slaughtered by invaders claiming they were acting in my name.




One might say you're the lord of the context-free manor.

Still. if WTC7 had been inside the semicircle of cameras as a huge fireball it would have completed the picture. Pure stage management. The 'shocking and awing' of the American people would have been all the more spectacular.

 

[BigAl]

Still. if WTC7 had been inside the semicircle of cameras as a huge fireball it would have completed the picture. Pure stage management. The 'shocking and awing' of the American people would have been all the more spectacular.

More cameras would have just demonstrated that the south side was aflame from top to bottom and that there were no people placing demolition charges and that there was no man-made demolition when WTC7 collapsed.

 

[carlitos]

Yes, you'd love me to speculate on exactly what happened that day, then you could pick through my hypothesis and bog me down for ever more in irrelevant details. Well, my time is better spent searching for evidence and arguments I can use to demolish the official conspiracy theory, then use that knowledge to rub your noses in your own poo.

Let's see if I have your argument down:
AA Flight 11 did not exist?
UA Flight 75 did not exist?
Al Qaeda did not exist?
Hijackers did not exist?
Video footage of 9/11/01 was 'faked' somehow?

You should really seek help if you are this unable to discern reality from fantasy. Maybe you should get out more, see some real people, have a chat. Going to New York next 9/11 would be a good first step.