9/11 CTs in general

[Corsair 115]

Those aircraft/missiles were travelling at very high speeds... in the 800 feet per second range. When those video clips are played in real time the aircraft/missile appears literally out of nowhere...

That depends entirely on the viewing angle of a particular video.

Only the SLOW MOTION VIDEOS allow one to see what is going on and I agree that there are some strange anomalies in many of those videos.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! How many times must I repeat this? IF YOU HAVE A DECENT EYE FOR SPOTTING SPECIAL EFFECTS, YOU CAN SPOT THEM BY WATCHING A VIDEO PLAYED AT NORMAL SPEED. No slow motion, no frame-by-frame analysis needed. Just normal speed viewing repeated as necessary.

ANY shot involving any sort of visual effect should be detectable at normal speed. If you can't spot potential effects in a shot at normal speed, you've got no eye for spotting special effects and any analysis done is highly suspect. Period. It really is that simple.

 

[JonnyFive]

Wouldn't video need to be shot with a high speed camera to derive any real benefit from slowing it down? Otherwise, you're just prolonging the experience without actually being able to gather additional detail. If something moves too fast to capture properly on a 30 fps recording, slowing the resulting video down will not create additional detail in between the recorded frames.

Was anyone shooting with a high speed camera that day? That seems like it would be exceptionally unusual, and don't digital cameras all shoot between 24 and 30 fps?

 

[T.A.M.]

Andreaz:

There are dozens, if not hundreds of eyewitness accounts of people witnessing the planes hit, especially the UA175. You are gonna have to do better than "people can be fooled" as an explanation. Provide one piece of evidence, besides your "gut feelings", that there are no witnesses that saw flights AA11 or UA175 crash into the WTCs. thanks.

Apollo20:

Andreasz:

Welcome to JREF, although you will probably find it a waste of time talking to the live-free-and-die-hard types that always appear to have the most to say on these conspiracy threads!

Anyway, I can certainly say it's no surprise that you are already getting the typical "treatment" from the usual "experts" that I have seen doled out over and over again to anyone who comes here questioning the official "story". When anyone calls this an "educational" forum, the educational bit mostly refers to a demonstration of the art of the cutting remark!

I tend to save my CUTTING REMARKS for those who come here presenting the usual, well debunked garbage, and who present it as if we are stupid for not seeing it their way.

Oh, and one word of warning Andreasz, better watch out for posters who offer no technical content... I could name them.... but I think you will be able to tell who they are. I would put them on "ignore" immediately.

Well we can't all be engineers or chemists, now can we. I have done alot of reading on 9/11, and I do have many courses at college level in both Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Mathematics. Yes I have not used any of it in a long time (Their is no use for Laplace Transforms in assessing Heart Disease), but I would consider my posts here "lacking in content" so much as lacking in technical detail...for the most part.

As for this claim that you are "Calling Thousands of New Yorkers Liars", I don't buy that. Those aircraft/missiles were travelling at very high speeds... in the 800 feet per second range. When those video clips are played in real time the aircraft/missile appears literally out of nowhere and are immediately destroyed in a fraction of a second. Only the SLOW MOTION VIDEOS allow one to see what is going on and I agree that there are some strange anomalies in many of those videos.

I have been in NYC many times and I know that standing on a typical street corner in Lower Manhattan you have a pretty restricted view of the sky. Most of the witnesses said something like "I HEARD a roar, or the SOUND of a jet... and then SAW something hit the tower". And the eyewitnesses were NOT consistent in how they described the "aircraft". Someone said it was a "prop" plane and someone said it was a missile. Does this mean one of these "New Yorkers" was lying?

Well I am sure there were lots of witnesses who saw the explosion, or saw the plane, and didnt turn in time to see the plane actually hit the building, but I am also sure there were lots who did actually see the plane, especially UA175, hit the building.

TAM

 

[Alt+F4]

I have been in NYC many times and I know that standing on a typical street corner in Lower Manhattan you have a pretty restricted view of the sky. Most of the witnesses said something like "I HEARD a roar, or the SOUND of a jet... and then SAW something hit the tower". And the eyewitnesses were NOT consistent in how they described the "aircraft". Someone said it was a "prop" plane and someone said it was a missile. Does this mean one of these "New Yorkers" was lying?

I sir, have lived in New York City my entire 43 years. I saw a large passenger jet hit the south tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Why don't you return to NYC soon and debunk the thousands of others who saw the same thing I did? Your insinuation is disgraceful.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Now Greening is questioning my friends and neighbors? Some of whom have photos and videos of the second plane hitting? Questioning my girlfriend who saw both planes hit from close range?

What the hell is wrong with these people?

What has turned them into such nasty, ignorant, insulting human beings?

Am I allowed to be skeptical about the bolded part?

Gravy I thought Dr Greening was one of your favourite debunkers. Why did you turn on him? Was it when he showed that he really is a skeptic unlike the pseudo skeptics here?

 

[HyJinX]

Am I allowed to be skeptical about the bolded part?

Gravy I thought Dr Greening was one of your favourite debunkers. Why did you turn on him? Was it when he showed that he really is a skeptic unlike the pseudo skeptics here?

Hey there, PDoh! How's your sock drawer? Full yet?

 

[T.A.M.]

Am I allowed to be skeptical about the bolded part?

Gravy I thought Dr Greening was one of your favourite debunkers. Why did you turn on him? Was it when he showed that he really is a skeptic unlike the pseudo skeptics here?

I think Apollo is more inquisitive than truther. I think he is torn between his dedication to honest science, which is strong, and his dislike towards the establishment, which he sees as corrupt and immoral.

The only way I ever see Frank coming to terms with this is if he actually finds some evidence that supports the CTists, which is almost certainly not going to happen. He has done good work, and while I am sure he is proud of it, and should be, I bet he would have rather discovered that the USG "did it", so that his dislike of establishment and love of science would be in harmony...

But this is just my opinion based on my limited encounters with him. I could be totally wrong, in which case, I AM SURE, Dr. Greening will set me straight.

TAM

 

[Apollo20]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

And while we are on the subject of trick photography, how about those fake Apollo photos.....

Is someone now going to claim that Buzz is their uncle and this is a personal affront!

Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?

 

[HyJinX]

<snip> Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!


Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

Contradict much?

 

[Anti-sophist]

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?

I am literally aghast that you can repeat such abject and well-tread nonsense. Maybe next you can mention that the temperatures were too high to melt steel or that the hijackers are still alive?

 

[Revolutionary91]

I think Apollo is more inquisitive than truther. I think he is torn between his dedication to honest science, which is strong, and his dislike towards the establishment, which he sees as corrupt and immoral.

The only way I ever see Frank coming to terms with this is if he actually finds some evidence that supports the CTists, which is almost certainly not going to happen. He has done good work, and while I am sure he is proud of it, and should be, I bet he would have rather discovered that the USG "did it", so that his dislike of establishment and love of science would be in harmony...

But this is just my opinion based on my limited encounters with him. I could be totally wrong, in which case, I AM SURE, Dr. Greening will set me straight.

TAM

Dr Greening is certainly not a truther. He is a real skeptic. He evaluates evidence and searches for more. He doesn't knee jerk react to anyone who dares question the official story. True skeptics must cringe reading this forum.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?
(snip)

No. This whole site is geared toward promoting critical thinking.

Conspiracy theories is just a sub-forum.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Dr Greening is certainly not a truther. He is a real skeptic. He evaluates evidence and searches for more. He doesn't knee jerk react to anyone who dares question the official story. True skeptics must cringe reading this forum.

so will you be evaluating evidence for the official story? or are you not a real skeptic?

 

[LashL]

Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

Someone here has gone off the deep end, that much is certain. Guess who.

 

[Hyperviolet]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

And while we are on the subject of trick photography, how about those fake Apollo photos.....

Is someone now going to claim that Buzz is their uncle and this is a personal affront!

Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?

Dr Greening,

I, personally, am not touchy at all about the idea of missiles. I myself do not believe any of the theories involving them, but most certainly am not touchy as to whether someone chooses to discuss them on a conspiracy (sub) forum.

I respectfully ask again - Do you consider the idea of a missile strike seriously? Or is your wording purely descriptive of the flight path and subsequent impact?

Of course, you are under no obligation to disclose your opinion on this, however, it would be appreciated if you did indeed clarify this.

Thank you.

 

[Rahne Everson]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

Dr. Greening, if you're going to play devil's advocate for the conspiracy side, don't do it for the no-planers. Please. It's just nonsense, and everything one says about it that even remotely supports it is nonsense. It's not worth anybody's time.

 

[Alt+F4]

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

Yeah, sometimes I do go off the deep end when discussing this. Almost 3,000 people dead, about 3,000 children lost a parent.

Dr. Greening, have you ever been to a funeral where there is a casket but no body inside? Has your local newspaper ever been filled with pages and pages of obituaries for months on end? Have you ever had to explain to a child that the sound they are hearing is just thunder and not another plane crashing?

 

[Drudgewire]

Is someone now going to claim that Buzz is their uncle and this is a personal affront!

Of all the reasons these bogus conspiracy theories are maddening, providing people for Buzz Aldrin to punch in the face is not one of them.

 

[Reheat]

Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?

Well, it was a missile in the shape of a B-767, wasn't it?

I'll bet the "tail" was hidden because of those pedophile members of the NWO!

 

[FatesWebb]

things of note in the article:

"Motorola launches first US camera phone"

"Friday November 21, 2003"

ive also read that the Sanyo 8100 was also the first US camera phone, but it was also released in 2003

clearly Andreaz has more research to do before opening his mouth

hmm... the first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2002. The Sprint wireless carriers deployed over 1 million camera phone manufactured by Sanyo and launched by the PictureMail infrastructure (Sha-Mail in English) developed and managed by LightSurf.

(who needs to do more research again?)