Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[aggle-rithm]

Similarly, explosions in deep space don't form billowing fireballs and clouds. Things would simply speed away rapidly and straight from the center of explosion.

Wait a minute....

You're telling me people CAN'T outrun a nuclear explosion on foot...?

But...but...moviemakers wouldn't LIE, would they?

 

[lapman]

For the following:

"Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 ..."

Can you indicate whether you are basing the claim on a substantiating source or whether you are speculating?

Note: You don't have to source the part that apparently distinguishes rational from irrational persons, adult or otherwise. Rather, the part I am interested in knowing whether you can source it or not is that part pertaining to what "animation capabilities existed in 2001."

As an aside, if you know and are willing to post it, your statement infers that such capabilites may have come into existence after 2001, but before now. If that inference is correct, a source would likewise be appreciated if it is available to you. You do not need to go off on a wild goose chase.

thanks

Computer animation has been a hobby of mine since the early '80's. I've used many different programs from POV through 3DS Max. I've followed the capabilities of all the major animation software. The biggest problem has always been re-creating natural light. In 2001, they were getting closer, but still not there.

 

[lapman]

While the level of precision evidenced in your observation of data is rather low, you do exhibit some capacity for making an observation of data, nonetheless.

Apparently, your criteria for deciding what is or isn't a plane is pretty low. Do you always use your imagination to fill in missing information and assume that what you thusly imagine is correct?

By the way, if you want to take a look at another version of approximately the same moment in that video, you may do so at NIST's website at:


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

See:
1-2B appendix

pg. 4/10

The tail section is just as missing from the NIST version as it is from the one I posted. There is, perhaps, a greater hint of a left wing in the NIST version, thus requiring a bit less use of imagination and wishful thinking. However, the wing is still missing there as well.

One has to literally say "well, there must be a wing in there somewhere," hope prayer (pun intended) in order to conclude the visual information comports with reality.

It doesn't.

No wing and no tail:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954[/qimg]

It must have taken you a long time to cherry pick that precise frame in order for you to support your fantasy. First, the wings are clearly visible. The tail is lost in the video artifact. What definitely idiotic about this is that in the pic shot from the exact same video:

Clearly shows the wings and tail. Why am I not surprised that you ignored this.

BTW, the tail is quite visible in the NIST document you linked to.

 

[TJM]

Computer animation has been a hobby of mine since the early '80's. I've used many different programs from POV through 3DS Max. I've followed the capabilities of all the major animation software. The biggest problem has always been re-creating natural light. In 2001, they were getting closer, but still not there.

Oh sorry!

That's education & expertise and is not allowed under logjam rules.

Thanks for playing!

 

[GlennB]

No wing and no tail:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...g/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954

No columns. No windows. Crap still from a grainy video that has been recycled more time than the dying breath of Michelangelo.

 

[jammonius]

You continue to be wrong.



Thousands of people saw a 757/767 hit a tower.

Source: Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend and/or the archives of the New York newspapers.

newspapers aren't evidence; and, in any event, you haven't shown 100s let alone 1000s of them, such as they are. To be sure, you might be able to show a couple hundred newspaper ditties, provided you included the National Enquirer and Pennysaver, maybe.

But, no matter how you slice it, you will not find 1000s.

Instead, you will find people who saw an explosion because that is, in fact, what happened.

 

[jammonius]

No columns. No windows. Crap still from a grainy video that has been recycled more time than the dying breath of Michelangelo.

As I said, the same is seen in the NIST version. Furthermore, you have done nothing except describe what the video shows. That is what this drill is about; namely: what does the available data actually show?

Answer: Vague, inconclusive, suggestive and highly suspicious images and sound, in those that have sound.

One remarkable thing about second hit videos is that the majority of them either have no sound at all; or, pick up the sound of everything and everyone EXCEPT a jetliner supposedly screaming along at an earsplitting 550mph.

Get a clue.

 

[jammonius]

Computer animation has been a hobby of mine since the early '80's. I've used many different programs from POV through 3DS Max. I've followed the capabilities of all the major animation software. The biggest problem has always been re-creating natural light. In 2001, they were getting closer, but still not there.

Hence, drumroll.....Shadow thingy

Re-read your own post for what it actually says, lapman.

 

[dafydd]

Hence, drumroll.....Shadow thingy

Re-read your own post for what it actually says, lapman.

You are really insane,aren't you?

 

[BigAl]

newspapers aren't evidence; and, in any event, you haven't shown 100s let alone 1000s of them, such as they are. To be sure, you might be able to show a couple hundred newspaper ditties, provided you included the National Enquirer and Pennysaver, maybe.

But, no matter how you slice it, you will not find 1000s.

Instead, you will find people who saw an explosion because that is, in fact, what happened.

You are wrong.

 

[jammonius]

It must have taken you a long time to cherry pick that precise frame in order for you to support your fantasy.

You do not know what cherry-picking is, despite it being one of your favorite phrases. I do not engage in cherry-picking; rather, I use suitable data for the context we are in; namely, a message board.

First, the wings are clearly visible.

Our disagreement in the above might only be one of degree. The right wing is visible; but the left wing is either not visible or is opaque in a way that suggests that it is not real.

The tail is lost in the video artifact.

You are not being forthcoming in your observation in my opinion; and, instead, you are engaging in rationalization. You need to admit the tail is not seen and then acknowledge or claim there might be a justification for it being missing. You could do that, but then you would be clear in your attempt to explain away the fact the tail is missing.

What definitely idiotic about this is that in the pic shot from the exact same video:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...efttorightmeltintobldgKEY354.png?t=1274284619



Clearly shows the wings and tail. Why am I not surprised that you ignored this.

Take a closer look. In that one, the right wing is FUBAR instead of the left one. That image is just as troublesome, just as suggestive of animation, of some sort, or holographic technology, as an alternative, as is the other one. Furthermore, one can go further here and give a foreshadowing of what is to come. Virtually all 43 of the videos have problems of one sort or another in terms of the way the shadow thingy is depicted.

Not one of the 43 looks authentic; EXCEPT those that show no plane at all, of which there are at least 2 if not 3 or 4.

We will get to that in due course.

BTW, the tail is quite visible in the NIST document you linked to.

Well, I appreciate your making the effort to look at the data. I disagree with you about what the picture shows though.

The NIST document contains a copyright notice. But, since the document is in the public domain, a governmental document, I am here going to post the NIST version in the expectation it will not be taken down as a rule violation, despite the copyright notice.

However, if it gets taken down then, we will have to limit our disagreement to one that does not have a visual reference.

In my view, the tail is still missing in part and the left wing is partially missing and partially indicative that it is animation of some sort, and not real:

---image deleted ---

 

[lapman]

Hence, drumroll.....Shadow thingy

Re-read your own post for what it actually says, lapman.

HAHAHAHAHAH. You think a grainy YouTube video is proof of something. The lenghts you will go to hold on to your fantasy. What you don't realize is that the "shadow thingy" HAS WINGS AND A TAIL AND IN THE OTHER PIC FROM THE SAME VIDEO THE IMAGE IS QUITE CLEAR.

 

[jammonius]

Lapman,

I hope you've had a chance to take a look at the NIST photo. I am going to edit the post because in my position it is better to err on the side of over compliance with the rules, rather than under compliance, if you get my drift...

 

[George 152]

You are really insane,aren't you?

The 'ignore' function was invented for posters like him !

 

[jammonius]

HAHAHAHAHAH. You think a grainy YouTube video is proof of something. The lenghts you will go to hold on to your fantasy. What you don't realize is that the "shadow thingy" HAS WINGS AND A TAIL AND IN THE OTHER PIC FROM THE SAME VIDEO THE IMAGE IS QUITE CLEAR.

No, Lapman, I think you oversimplify, but, disagreement of that sort is acceptable.

At least you're referencing the data.

Note, once again, I am not here trying to convince anyone of anything. I am encouraging review of and discussion about the data.

I have no problem with your disagreement and with your stating your reasons. I think the imagery is animated and/or the result of holgraphic technology and that is the reason for the multiple, identifiable inconsistencies between and among videos and between and among frames within the same one.

Your post concerning lighting is very much a hint or clue consistent with what is being said here, in my opinion.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Hence, drumroll.....Shadow thingy

Re-read your own post for what it actually says, lapman.

jammonius,

As you obviously have time on your hands, you must be independently wealthy. Clearly able to source first-generation video as opposed to the multi-generationally degraded YouTube images that you base your arguments on. Then you'd be able to discern details, details that have been thrown away and lost in the YouTube process.

Unless more detail, higher resolution, better information from which to base an opinion on is anathema to your position.One question: you want to be honest or do you want to continue to ride this demented hobbyhorse?

 

[lapman]

You do not know what cherry-picking is, despite it being one of your favorite phrases. I do not engage in cherry-picking; rather, I use suitable data for the context we are in; namely, a message board.

That's a lie. You purposely picked a frame that was full of video artifacts in order to hold on to your fantasy.

Our disagreement in the above might only be one of degree. The right wing is visible; but the left wing is either not visible or is opaque in a way that suggests that it is not real.

Of course you would say that. You have to hand wave away everything that is inconvenient to your fantasy, so you make up an interpretation.

You are not being forthcoming in your observation in my opinion; and, instead, you are engaging in rationalization. You need to admit the tail is not seen and then acknowledge or claim there might be a justification for it being missing. You could do that, but then you would be clear in your attempt to explain away the fact the tail is missing.

So you cannot comprehend the difference between being obscured by video artifacts and missing. Why am I not surprised.

Take a closer look. In that one, the right wing is FUBAR instead of the left one. That image is just as troublesome, just as suggestive of animation, of some sort, or holographic technology, as an alternative, as is the other one. Furthermore, one can go further here and give a foreshadowing of what is to come. Virtually all 43 of the videos have problems of one sort or another in terms of the way the shadow thingy is depicted.

Now you believe in fictitious holographic tech.. oh wait, you believe in the fictitious dustification DEWs. Never mind. None have any problems with showing the aircraft that all rational adults see. You have purposely used grainy YouTube videos since you can twist and mold them to conform to your fantasy.

Not one of the 43 looks authentic; EXCEPT those that show no plane at all, of which there are at least 2 if not 3 or 4.

Of course you would say that. You have to hand wave away everything that is inconvenient to your fantasy.

Well, I appreciate your making the effort to look at the data. I disagree with you about what the picture shows though.

Of course you would. Agreement would be abandoning the fantasy that you must hold on to in order to keep your fantasy alive.

In my view, the tail is still missing in part and the left wing is partially missing and partially indicative that it is animation of some sort, and not real:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/nistnotail.jpg?t=1274303598[/qimg]

That is false. Even motion blur would not delete anything. However, video artifacts would obscure parts of the aircraft. Fortunately, rational adults know this. Only the delusional would consider that proof of anything.

 

[BigAl]

You do not know what cherry-picking is, despite it being one of your favorite phrases. I do not engage in cherry-picking; rather, I use suitable data for the context we are in; namely, a message board.



Our disagreement in the above might only be one of degree. The right wing is visible; but the left wing is either not visible or is opaque in a way that suggests that it is not real.



You are not being forthcoming in your observation in my opinion; and, instead, you are engaging in rationalization. You need to admit the tail is not seen and then acknowledge or claim there might be a justification for it being missing. You could do that, but then you would be clear in your attempt to explain away the fact the tail is missing.



Take a closer look. In that one, the right wing is FUBAR instead of the left one.

Thousands of people saw that plane hit the tower.

 

[lapman]

No, Lapman, I think you oversimplify, but, disagreement of that sort is acceptable.

At least you're referencing the data.

Note, once again, I am not here trying to convince anyone of anything. I am encouraging review of and discussion about the data.

One big lie. You have no real interest in an actual discussion. You just want attention.

I have no problem with your disagreement and with your stating your reasons. I think the imagery is animated and/or the result of holgraphic technology and that is the reason for the multiple, identifiable inconsistencies between and among videos and between and among frames within the same one.

All of your "inconsistencies" are purely in your imagination. So we can now add video artifacts and CGI to your long list of things you have zero knowledge of.

Your post concerning lighting is very much a hint or clue consistent with what is being said here, in my opinion.

As usual, your opinion has no basis in reality.

 

[dudalb]

He's not just a dead horse.....he's a zombie horse!

[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/zombiehest.png[/qimg]

Shades of Jonah Hex.....