Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

[Anders Lindman]

The poster states he edited out the plane from the original video to show how easy it was to edit videos.
.

Where? Not in the text you quoted:

"http://911review.org/brad.com/fake_video/FAKE.html
i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video. Many of the 9/11 videos were released days, or even years later (the original for this one, was released YEARS after September 11 !)
This original in my opinion is a complete fake.Remember, MANY of the videos you see about 9-11 have NOT been authenticated, and were either submitted by ANONYMOUS people, or the people who submitted them work for the government, Such as one video by SCOTT MEYERS computer programmer for the NIST. "

Where in that text does it say editing out of plane?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Pareidolia.. Ever heard if it. People turn a vague or insignificant image and perceive it as being important.

Did you miss my reply about several angles? Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA

And no, it's not a missile, nor a nose cone. It's a time and position marker flash. Actually, similar flash in both towers. Mere coincidences? Mere pareidolia?

 

[beachnut]

RADAR proves 175 was used in the attacks by terrorists. Tracked from takeoff to impact. It is called science. How does 911 truth deny science?

 

[TheRedWorm]

And your evidence for him being a government agent is......

Remember.... You are allowed an opinion, but you base that opinion on what?


Mmmmmmm the troll is strong in this one

Yep. Nice post upthread about lack of understanding of science in truthers. That is the sole purpose I get out of AL threads, reading people who know what the hell they are talking about.

 

[Anders Lindman]

there are 4 or 5 RADAR sites putting Flight 175 at the exact point.

Really? I doubt it.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Really? I doubt it.

That's nice. Meaningless but nice

Fitz

 

[Montag451]

Did you miss my reply about several angles? Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA

And no, it's not a missile, nor a nose cone. It's a time and position marker flash. Actually, similar flash in both towers. Mere coincidences? Mere pareidolia?

And your evidence for it being a time and marker flash is?

Not one single time have you ever given a real reply to any question. You can show any number of so called images but until you have evidence of authenticity then you are at best being disingenuous at worst dishonest (maybe a bit of gullible thrown in).

I had an email showing a picture of Natalie Portman sort of er... wrestling with 4 naked guys. Evidence for her flexibility and open mindedness?

 

[Robrob]

Where? Not in the text you quoted:

"http://911review.org/brad.com/fake_video/FAKE.html
i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video. Many of the 9/11 videos were released days, or even years later (the original for this one, was released YEARS after September 11 !)
This original in my opinion is a complete fake.Remember, MANY of the videos you see about 9-11 have NOT been authenticated, and were either submitted by ANONYMOUS people, or the people who submitted them work for the government, Such as one video by SCOTT MEYERS computer programmer for the NIST. "

Where in that text does it say editing out of plane?

He took the original and edited out the plane. Your lack of English comprehension isn't my problem.

 

[Montag451]

Debunking truthers is like slug hunting with a blunderbuss. Far too easy but the slugs never learn

 

[Anders Lindman]

And your evidence for it being a time and marker flash is?

The video I posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

If you examine the flash more closely, you will see that it's not an editing artifact. Could the flash have been edited in afterwards? Not likely.

For your claim to hold, you need to have the flash to be either edited in or being an artifact of editing and/or video compression. And you need that to be repeated for several camera angles, and for both towers. Good luck with that claim.

 

[Anders Lindman]

He took the original and edited out the plane. Your lack of English comprehension isn't my problem.

And if so, pray tell me, what did the uploader mean by this: "This original in my opinion is a complete fake."

 

[Robrob]

And if so, pray tell me, what did the uploader mean by this: "This original in my opinion is a complete fake."

The original video of the plane was (in his opinion) a fake.

Really, how difficult is this? I begin to suspect you are playing at Poe.

 

[Montag451]

The video I posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

If you examine the flash more closely, you will see that it's not an editing artifact. Could the flash have been edited in afterwards? Not likely.

For your claim to hold, you need to have the flash to be either edited in or being an artifact of editing and/or video compression. And you need that to be repeated for several camera angles, and for both towers. Good luck with that claim.

You claim it is a flash. I simply claim that the authenticity of the image is in question. Get hold of the original and get in analyzed by competent non-bias specialists and I will happily accept your claim.

I do take a little umbrage with the idea editing a flash into a poor quality video image is in anyway difficult. Following that logic doing the same to other images is of no consequence.

You are aware the robots in transformers aren't real?

 

[Anders Lindman]

The original video of the plane was (in his opinion) a fake.

Really, how difficult is this? I begin to suspect you are playing at Poe.

Of the plane? You are adding 'a plane' by implication when such implication may not be valid. So the original WITH a plane was a fake? And then that fake was turned into another fake without a plane?!

 

[Montag451]

The original video of the plane was (in his opinion) a fake.

Really, how difficult is this? I begin to suspect you are playing at Poe.

And what is is level of expertise to conclude it is a fake?

 

[Anders Lindman]

You claim it is a flash. I simply claim that the authenticity of the image is in question. Get hold of the original and get in analyzed by competent non-bias specialists and I will happily accept your claim.

But ask yourself: What do YOU think the white dot is? You wrote something about a nose cone earlier. Do you believe the white dot is a part of the nose cone?

 

[Robrob]

The original video of the plane was (in his opinion) a fake.

Really, how difficult is this? I begin to suspect you are playing at Poe.

And what is is level of expertise to conclude it is a fake?

Assuming you are serious - that's not the issue. The issue is he admits he took a video (which apparently he believed was fake) and edited out the airplane in order to show how easily videos can be edited.

A.L. posted the (edited) video as "evidence." Now that it's been rubbed in his face, he is desperately trying to tap dance around it.

 

[Montag451]

But ask yourself: What do YOU think the white dot is? You wrote something about a nose cone earlier. Do you believe the white dot is a part of the nose cone?

No I believe it is a bunch of white pixels found on an image uploaded by a truther on YouTube who has admitted to manipulating the image.

Or it is a real flash that was set off to allow future video technicians to edit planes in to all footage available of the most filmed terrorist event the planet has ever seen? I know which one is logically more likely.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No I believe it is a bunch of white pixels found on an image uploaded by a truther on YouTube who has admitted to manipulating the image.

Or it is a real flash that was set off to allow future video technicians to edit planes in to all footage available of the most filmed terrorist event the planet has ever seen? I know which one is logically more likely.

But again, you ignore the evidence from several different camera angles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA

Ok, I will let you off the hook. It's not easy to debunk this, I know.

 

[Montag451]

Assuming you are serious - that's not the issue. The issue is he admits he took a video (which apparently he believed was fake) and edited out the airplane in order to show how easily videos can be edited.

A.L. posted the (edited) video as "evidence." Now that it's been rubbed in his face, he is desperately trying to tap dance around it.

No not serious just laughing at ALs linguistic contortions. I would say tap dancing around is actually being very polite. Deliberate lies would better sum it up.