Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets WTC2 bang on centre screen, ignoring the burning WTC1 which is in shot but somewhat on on the periphery. Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2. I find this shot HIGHLY suspect.
Click to expand...

Pure bilge. WTC1 + 2 are central and the shot is framed, left and (somewhat) right, by the dark of nearby buildings. If he got WTC1 dead central - panning left - it would be a poorly composed shot, as the building close on the left would appear as a dark slab over more of the field of view.
So what we have is a cameraman doing a good job, which leads you to conclude he had advance knowledge? So now the French are involved in the CT eh? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Pure bilge. WTC1 + 2 are central and the shot is framed, left and (somewhat) right, by the dark of nearby buildings. If he got WTC1 dead central - panning left - it would be a poorly composed shot, as the building close on the left would appear as a dark slab over more of the field of view.
So what we have is a cameraman doing a good job, which leads you to conclude he had advance knowledge? So now the French are involved in the CT eh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Check out post #2733 Glenn
 
Honestly, at this point, people who question the events and the collapses are either willfully ignorant, or morons.
 
bill smith said:
In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets WTC2 bang on centre screen, ignoring the burning WTC1 which is in shot but somewhat on on the periphery. Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2. I find this shot HIGHLY suspect. He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit. (or where they planned to inject the image) This really could explain the cameraman's lack of reaction until the explosion occurs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Naudet 2

PS click through the video from 45-47 seconds and see if you see anything odd ?
Click to expand...

Jesus bill, you and I had this discussion, and you admitted that you were wrong on the "Center Frame" thing. Does it just not register, or does it matter whether what you spew is lies or not?

TAM:jaw-dropp
 
Minadin said:
Honestly, at this point, people who question the events and the collapses are either willfully ignorant, or morons.
Click to expand...
Oooo! I know the answer to this one!
Pick me! Pick me! >waves hand in air<
I know the answer!
Pleeeeezzzeee pick me!
 
T.A.M. said:
Jesus bill, you and I had this discussion, and you admitted that you were wrong on the "Center Frame" thing. Does it just not register, or does it matter whether what you spew is lies or not?

TAM:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I only leave it there TAM as a kind of bait. In that piece I offer the camera position thing and I offer the Naudet brothers thing. It's intersting to observe how many on your side of he argument only want to discuss the camera position thing.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I only leave it there TAM as a kind of bait. In that piece I offer the camera position thing and I offer the Naudet brothers thing. It's intersting to observe how many on your side of he argument only want to discuss the camera position thing.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to claim that no plane hit either or both towers?

Or are you "just asking questions"?
 
apathoid said:
[pedant]
AF1 and AA11 were poth powered by the General Electric CF6WP. Though obviously, AF1 has twice as many...most of the time anyways. ;)
[/pedant]
Click to expand...
Well, "paint me pink & call me porky." You speak with truthiness. :o

And I sit corrected.

tom
 
BigAl said:
Are you trying to claim that no plane hit either or both towers?

Or are you "just asking questions"?
Click to expand...

I don't put myself down as a 'no-planer'. I am only looking at the evidence for no-planes. I would only have to say at this point that they can absolutely not be ruled out.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I don't put myself down as a 'no-planer'. I am only looking at the evidence for no planes. I would only have to say at this point that they can absolutely not be ruled out.
Click to expand...
So basically you just throw stuff at the wall and see what (if anything) sticks. No matter how irredeemingly stupid it is. Yeah, that's productive.
 
bill smith said:
I don't put myself down as a 'no-planer'. I am only looking at the evidence for no planes. I would only have to say at this point that they can absolutely not be ruled out.
Click to expand...

And you only look where there are no planes.

Bill is a no-planer!
 
Ever notice how when a reporter asks a police department spokesperson about progress on a case, and for whatever reason there has not been much progress, they often say something like "no one is being ruled out?" It's a very useful statement, as it openly acknowledges a lack of progress (ruling out suspects being the crux of the police's task) while affirming that they're working very hard on it (after all, they're still investigating everyone).

So here we have the state of the truth movement's progress in 7-1/2 years: "the presence of planes at ground zero cannot be ruled out."

Nice going folks. [golf clap]

Since it's hard to keep up with the breakneck progress you're making, I have to ask, have you at least confirmed those early rumors that buildings were involved?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
Ever notice how when a reporter asks a police department spokesperson about progress on a case, and for whatever reason there has not been much progress, they often say something like "no one is being ruled out?" It's a very useful statement, as it openly acknowledges a lack of progress (ruling out suspects being the crux of the police's task) while affirming that they're working very hard on it (after all, they're still investigating everyone).

So here we have the state of the truth movement's progress in 7-1/2 years: "the presence of planes at ground zero cannot be ruled out."

Nice going folks. [golf clap]

Since it's hard to keep up with the breakneck progress you're making, I have to ask, have you at least confirmed those early rumors that buildings were involved?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

It's not that dissimilar to Bush saying that 'nothing was off the table' in respect to Iran. You can assume that I take the same line on no-planes.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
It's not that dissimilar to Bush saying that 'nothing was off the table' in respect to Iran. You can assume that I take the same line on no-planes.
Click to expand...

Very few people here would put Bush out if he was on fire, try again.

No planers are pond life.
 
bill smith said:
It's not that dissimilar to Bush saying that 'nothing was off the table' in respect to Iran.
Click to expand...


You're right, it's not.

Interesting, that you're proudly pointing out your similarities to Bush. Here I thought you didn't approve of the guy.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Please resolve these two statements...

.
bill smith said:
Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2. I find this shot HIGHLY suspect. He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit. (or where they planned to inject the image) This really could explain the cameraman's lack of reaction until the explosion occurs.
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
I only leave it there TAM as a kind of bait. In that piece I offer the camera position thing and I offer the Naudet brothers thing. It's intersting to observe how many on your side of he argument only want to discuss the camera position thing.
Click to expand...

... in some way that doesn't show you to be a reckless, cavalier purveyor of baseless accusations of heinous crimes against hundreds of people.

... in some way that doesn't show how little regard you have for the the difference between "... gee, it might be ...", "... it probably is ..." and "... it clearly is ...".


(BTW, I know that it's of no particular concern to you, but those people happen to be "innocent".)
__

I see that you & TAM discussed this, and to his mind put it to bed, recently. Only to have it crop up again. What a surprise...!

You & I discussed this over six months ago. Each buildings have a (1 wide to 6.5 high) aspect ratio. NTSC video (i.e., TV) has a 4 wide to 3 high aspect ratio. These do not match. Therefore there is a ton of unused video space to either side of the building. Wasted video space on the image. That means that the cameraman can artistically compose the image in any one of a myriad of ways, and still get the "interesting" part on screen.

You think he should have put the fire & flames "in the middle". He thought that the "two towers in the middle" was more "interesting". BFD.

And you'll get beat about the head & shoulders about this issue in exactly the same way you've been beaten up regarding just about every issue you've brought up here.

Only to indifferently, irresponsibly bring up the exact same non-issues & irresponsible accusations one week, one month, one year from now.

Tell me again about this "truth" you claim to seek...?
 
bill smith said:
... Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2.
Click to expand...

He also included a lot of blue sky and it was where the audio clues told him where the plane would reappear when it came out from behind the buildings.

In other words, he was a good cameraman.

You, on the other hand are a no-plane loon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom