Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Jrrarglblarg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg

Note how parts of the alleged plane keep disappearing before and AS itslides into/hits the tower.

Why is this amazing to you? The plane is moving at 450+mph. Any part of the plane that has impacted the columns would continue moving forward at nearly 450mph, and thus cease to be visible to the camera, leaving only undamaged parts exposed to the camera.

 

[CastorTroyy]

Seeing as Truthers believe the conspirators made so many mistakes, what with the "bad actors", software "glitches", living hijackers and shameless violations of the laws of physics, what would have happened to the conspirator's plans if a software glitch had caused the holographic planes to dissolve in a burst of holographic voxels* prior to "striking" the towers?

If the conspirators were trying to convince the world that planes crashed into buildings, wouldn't it have been simpler and "safer" (from the conspirators' POV) to crash real planes into the buildings?


*Oh god, I've given the Truthers a new term to babble on about. Apologies in advance to rational, intelligent people of the world.

Or why use planes at all. Just blow it up and blame terrorists. Why leave it to human error where they may miss their target.

 

[Stamuel]

How do you think that 200 frames per second footage was obtained? Do you imagine somebody was recording the crash at 200 fps?





This video is just the equivalent of that magic image "enhance" function beloved by CSI type shows. It's not real. It starts with a copy of the original footage, shot at presumably 30fps, and then a computer makes up all the frames that fit in between the real ones.





You can't analyse that to glean new information, because all the new information it contains is entirely fabricated by a computer.

[Truther]

So you admit that the videos of the crash are computer generated fakes.

[/Truther]

 

[Clayton Moore]

How do you think that 200 frames per second footage was obtained? Do you imagine somebody was recording the crash at 200 fps?

This video is just the equivalent of that magic image "enhance" function beloved by CSI type shows. It's not real. It starts with a copy of the original footage, shot at presumably 30fps, and then a computer makes up all the frames that fit in between the real ones.

You can't analyse that to glean new information, because all the new information it contains is entirely fabricated by a computer.

Thanks.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Thanks.

You're a smart guy... is that really all you have to say in response?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

A column of air and fuel exits the tower before an explosion?

The alleged plane crashes into the tower and there is no explosion until after this instance of an exit in the video?

Also at 1:45 before the alleged plane even enters the tower it is hidden by the New York Good Day logo.

Your "1:45" clip is only one of many clips. The momentary effect sometimes known as "Pinocchio's nose" is visible in several other clips. The exact location of the "nose" can be seen in photos of the north face of the south tower, where the cladding has been blown off but the columns are intact (unlike the areas where columns were broken by penetrating debris, several pieces of which can be seen exiting the building on many clips. This is sometimes called by truther sites "the hole that wasn't there" and is actually pretty conclusive proof that the "nose" was a kinetic non-solid event.

Somewhere along the way over the years I read a post by someone who did the actual calculations for the volume of air within a 767 and the amount of kinetic energy and/or momentum the air inside the plane would have. Perhaps you've read that one too at some point, or maybe not. At any rate, the volume of air within the plane would not magically cease forward motion on impact and would be less disturbed in motion than solid material.

In every single one of the videos the "nose" immediately becomes a fireball, consistent with a 400+mph bolus of mechanically stirred fuel/air mixture exiting a burning building.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You're a smart guy... is that really all you have to say in response?

Aww. Don't be mean. How often in this forum does someone point out that some piece of evidence doesn't show what its original poster thought it did and get a 'thank you' in return? We should be throwing a party.

Clayton, you're welcome.

 

[MIKILLINI]

You're a smart guy... is that really all you have to say in response?

He's entertaining a misconception of facts;The usual truther process...

 

[Clayton Moore]

How do you think that 200 frames per second footage was obtained? Do you imagine somebody was recording the crash at 200 fps?

This video is just the equivalent of that magic image "enhance" function beloved by CSI type shows. It's not real. It starts with a copy of the original footage, shot at presumably 30fps, and then a computer makes up all the frames that fit in between the real ones.

You can't analyse that to glean new information, because all the new information it contains is entirely fabricated by a computer.

So you're saying the video was a fake or not a fake?


If fake who do you think faked it?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Maybe chrismohr will enlighten me as to how the pictured jet managed to enter the building without becoming visibly damaged and how the fuel laden wings did not explode immediately from the friction of the collision.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

And then please explain how, at 1:45 of the video, the nose of Flight 175 exits the tower INTACT. Can you explain that?

How can one of the weakest parts of a jet go through a steel enforced wall into the building and out through a steel enforced wall on the other side and remain UNDAMGED?

All attempts to answer are welcomed.

No word from chrismohr.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So you're saying the video was a fake or not a fake?


If fake who do you think faked it?

I would not call it a fake, no.

I'm saying that particular "200 frames per second" video is sure to be a computer interpolated slow motion video created from an original normal speed video. Although it can make it easier for the eye to follow motion compared to watching a jerky original video slowed down 7 or 8 times, it can't show us any real extra detail which was not in the original from which it was created.

If someone who understood that it was not original high speed camera footage claimed that it was, then obviously that would be deceitful, but the video is not intrinsically "fake".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No word from chrismohr.

Perhaps that's because you are waiting for a response in a thread in which chrismohr has never posted anything and for all we know may never even have read.

Sorry, my mistake. An initial search found nothing, but I didn't look back a sufficient length of time. Chrismohr has indeed contributed to this thread, in April of last year.

 

[dafydd]

No word from chrismohr.

Not a word from you about the sooper dooper energy beam weapon.

 

[LSSBB]

No word from chrismohr.

So PM him.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Why does Clayton specifically want an answer from chrismohr anyway?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why does Clayton specifically want an answer from chrismohr anyway?

Perhaps he understands the technical terminology, like what exactly a "steel enforced wall" is.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Or why use planes at all. Just blow it up and blame terrorists. Why leave it to human error where they may miss their target.

Exactly what happened. The tower elevators were rigged during 8 months of renovations.

The fake planes, THAT COULD NOT FAIL, were the cover story. That's why there were WAR GAMES on 9/11 and so many alleged FAILS by the US military and the US intelligence community.

 

[dafydd]

Exactly what happened. The tower elevators were rigged during 8 months of renovations.

The fake planes, THAT COULD NOT FAIL, were the cover story. That's why there were WAR GAMES on 9/11 and so many alleged FAILS by the US military and the US intelligence community.

How were these fake planes created?

 

[Border Reiver]

Exactly what happened. The tower elevators were rigged during 8 months of renovations.

The fake planes, THAT COULD NOT FAIL, were the cover story. That's why there were WAR GAMES on 9/11 and so many alleged FAILS by the US military and the US intelligence community.

The technology does not exist to project a hologram that appears solid
without a reflecting surface. And then there are those rather inconvienent flight records, radar tracks, family members of the victims, etc. Also, with the rather substantial number of eyewitnesses that saw the planes, and the wreckage found at the scene - how do you get to "fake plane"?

 

[NoahFence]

How were these fake planes created?

They weren't created. They were fake!