Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
That an image of a plane made up of 50 pixels (or less) should be clearly identifiable as an UA 767.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
9/11 No Planers who claim no planes struck the WTC, and think all the video is fake
- Thread starter Tinfoil Hater
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no planers
That an image of a plane made up of 50 pixels (or less) should be clearly identifiable as an UA 767.
Nobody saw planes because if they did, there would NOT be 3 live broadcasts showing a drone coming from the west.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How did it leave an opening in the tower shaped like an airplane with wings? You posted a video of it yourself. Here's a picture of your feet again after your self inflicted wounds.
Do you have a file with these chiches, or are you really this unoriginal?
Okay, I'll bite!
I'm guessing you might have addressed this already but I'm just curious...
How was this footage faked? What television equipment was used to fake this footage?
How were they able to create CGI graphics on the fly during several live broadcasts?
Which specific television station(s) in NYC were using this equipment and how were they able to keep their whole operation secret?
What specific software was used to create these CGI effects (you do know that computer 3D modeling software is used for effects like this, right?)?
Also, riddle me this, how can all of this be supplemented to a live television broadcast?
I have a video production background so I'm curious to find out if there's technology that is above the scope of your standard video geek.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I bet you won't show the original quality versions of these.
Does your mother know you lie like this?
Your lies were proved wrong by RADAR.
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
But inconveniently for you, they do. And inconveniently for you, you need to rely on low-res, multi-generationally-compressed video to make your 'point'. That'd be like me trying to drive without my glasses; an accident waiting to happen.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
He'll teach you how to be a reporter later.
He didn't say he "saw" a drone. he said that what another reporter described (not saw, described) could be a drone.
Try again.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
That makes no sense when talking about people on the street.
ETA: FYI "RL" means real life, as in NOT ON TV.
That an image of a plane made up of 50 pixels (or less) should be clearly identifiable as an UA 767.
The fake image they showed at 9:27 wasn't a plane, it was a silly cgi with no wings and dots for engines. The fake image could have never crashed into the southeast corner of T2 because it was north of it. T2 is south and east of T1. It's turn is consistent with it flying north and west of the towers.
His reporting confirms the drone video footage, you failed again. He was oblivious and gave an honest account without influence.
So only the footage that supports your point is evidence, and everything else, even videos from people who never turned it in to any news station, are fake.
I note how you just keep dodging the question of the thousands of eyewitnesses.
Just for giggles: what evidence would you require before you accept you are wrong? And don't try to say "non-faked footage". You already believe all footage is faked, so it would be impossible to meet that criteria.
So the one witness looking from range is "consistent", while the thousands of others are--actually, I don't think you've ever mentioned them.
You're like a parrot, constantly repeating what he doesn't really understand. Such as the fact that he only has an ambiguous statement from a single witness while he ignores thousands more statements from people much closer.
There's no point debating someone who literally cannot conceive of the possibility they are wrong.
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
And around and around and around we go, where she'll stop? Nobody knows.
The fake image they showed at 9:27 wasn't a plane, it was a silly cgi with no wings and dots for engines. The fake image could have never crashed into the southeast corner of T2 because it was north of it. T2 is south and east of T1. It's turn is consistent with it flying north and west of the towers.
7forever...
Does depth perception mean anything to you?
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
If no RL eyewitness is good enough for him, do you honestly believe something as mundane as proper depth perception will sway him?
I believe they are working on AR gear, but it certainly wouldn't have been available or even written in 2001, much less able to simultaneously convince thousands of people they saw planes.
The fake image they showed at 9:27 wasn't a plane, it was a silly cgi with no wings and dots for engines. The fake image could have never crashed into the southeast corner of T2 because it was north of it. T2 is south and east of T1. It's turn is consistent with it flying north and west of the towers.
7forever:
Also...
Give a read to post #246...
Can you answer any of these questions?
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
Reposting for 7forever to address. Yes, hope springs eternal