9/11 CTs in general

[mortimer]

Apollo20: Thanks for the welcome. It wasn't my intention to call anybody a liar... I am just saying that people might be willing to see what they are told, if it serves a greater good. I won't go into detail on that, I guess everybody knows what I mean.

No, please go into detail. The thousands of people who saw the second plane hit the tower... please explain how they were convinced to see a plane that was never there, and provide evidence of such.

 

[Drudgewire]

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?)

I'm guessing it's still the guy who is asking why there weren't more camera phone shots of the events of 9/11/01.

 

[kookbreaker]

Dr Greening is certainly not a truther. He is a real skeptic. He evaluates evidence and searches for more.

The implication here is that we have not done so. That could not be further from the truth.

He doesn't knee jerk react to anyone who dares question the official story. True skeptics must cringe reading this forum.

Why is it that every woowoo, from spoonbender to troofer has some ephemeral definition of a 'true skeptic' which always seems to be some kind of fence-sitting intellectual agnosticism that, despite the occasional token booger flung at the believer side, invariably has them landing far more heavily on the kooky side of things?

Seriously, its like the old crank group the Forteans. They would take all kinds of pains to attack skeptics at all levels, but would every now and then make a comment about the zanier side of things, and then blast the skeptics for using genuine information and data that had results they didn't like.

I'd like to know who these 'true skeptics' are and why they don't come in here to lambast us on a regular basis. Because to date the only folks who have come in here to complain about our attitude are troofers and cranks.

Where are they, Revy? Can't you get some to show up here? Surely Greening isn't the only true skeptic.

 

[FatesWebb]

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?

actually cameras capture 30 pictures a second, and your eye can only see about 10 a second. so you can actually see more if you slow a video down.

 

[JonnyFive]

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?)

Wikipedia couldn't have said it better:

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.

(Source)

You could have at least paraphrased the information.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

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?)

considering i devoted a whole 5 minutes to the subject and never said i had the end-all beat-all answer i will admit to requiring more research

however my point was andreaz pointed to the lack of thousands of cameraphone shots of the planes hitting the towers as evidence that there were no planes, when both your research and mine shows there were no cameraphones available in the US market at the time (im assuming he spent more than 5 minutes researching 911)

 

[Corsair 115]

actually cameras capture 30 pictures a second, and your eye can only see about 10 a second. so you can actually see more if you slow a video down.

Source for this claim? I ask because by that logic animation would need no more than ten frames per second. Ten frames per second would be quite jerky animation. Even 16 or 18 frames per second looks rather jerky.

 

[332nd]

No planes? So the Naudet film is fake too?

 

[kookbreaker]

considering i devoted a whole 5 minutes to the subject and never said i had the end-all beat-all answer i will admit to requiring more research

however my point was andreaz pointed to the lack of thousands of cameraphone shots of the planes hitting the towers as evidence that there were no planes, when both your research and mine shows there were no cameraphones available in the US market at the time (im assuming he spent more than 5 minutes researching 911)

I was half expecting him to complain that more videos should have been uploaded to youtube the evening of the attack.

Oh little problem there....

 

[JonnyFive]

actually cameras capture 30 pictures a second, and your eye can only see about 10 a second. so you can actually see more if you slow a video down.

That depends on a lot of things, actually. Human perception of motion is complex, and to say that your eye is physically capable of perceiving only 10 fps is incorrect. Another article on refresh rates and flicker.

If your assertion were correct, there would be no issue with video games running at 10 fps. Having observed a game running at 10 fps versus, say, 60 fps, I can tell you firsthand that the eye is capable of perceiving more than 10 fps when motion is a factor.

It still doesn't address the issue. If an object is moving fast enough to "skip" at 30 fps, slowing it down will not create data that was not recorded. This is the reason that high speed cameras are used for the recording of very fast-moving objects when precision is important. Such as, say, observing terminal ballistic penetration.

 

[sts60]

andreasz,

I have a more general question for you.

Suppose you are an evil conspirator who wants to murder thousands of your countrymen, inflict hundreds of billions of dollars of damage on the U.S. economy, and blame it on terrorists who hijacked jets and in particular crashed two of them into towers in one of the more densely populated cities, with one of the greatest concentration of media, on the planet.

In fact, you plan to fake the impact of the second one only after the spectacular first event, which has cued thousands of spectators and who knows how many personal and media camera operators to be looking up.

You know that these events will be endlessly talked about and scrutinized. You know that if the conspiracy is uncovered:
- you and everyone else involved will be subject to the death penalty
- whatever your nefarious aims may be, they will be discredited and ruined
- all your supporters and sponsors - everyone tied to you - will be reviled, investigated, and in general viewed with the greatest suspicion.

You know that you will somehow have to make the airliners and passengers disappear, that you will have to fool all those people and cameras (and you have no idea of who will be looking), that you will have to fool the vast majority of aviation and structural engineering and firefighting and demolition specialists, that you will have to convincingly and inconspicuously provide aircraft and airliner remains at the site, and above all not one of the people involved can ever tell.

Given all that, why would you not simply crash airliners into the towers?

And, given the above, which do you honestly think is more realistic:

- all the eyewitnesses were wrong, all the video and still imagery faked or spoofed, all the physical evidence planted, all the conspirators - and it would take a lot of conspirators - perfectly silent after all these years, and that the designers of the conspiracy chose the most complicated, most difficult way to pull off a massively destructive attack? - or -

- that aircraft really hit WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, and that the analysis in some video is flawed or simply makes inappropriate conclusions?

 

[NYCEMT86]

Andreasz:

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?

You didn't have to be in Lower Manhattan to see the WTC or Planes. Yes those on the tip may have had their views obstructed, but what about those on the BQE headed into the Battery Tunnel? Those on the Staten Island Fairy or at the terminal on Staten Island? Those on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, or even Queensboro bridge? Not to the mention those who live on the East River in Brooklyn or even on Roosevelt Island. Then you still have the people you live in New Jersey. On a clear day such as Sept 11th, you could see the those towers for miles, you could be on GW Bridge, look towards lower Manhattan and there they were.


*Addition/Edit* - I forgot the hundreds if not thousands of people who took to their roof tops after the first plane hit to see what was going on.

 

[Alt+F4]

however my point was andreaz pointed to the lack of thousands of cameraphone shots of the planes hitting the towers as evidence that there were no planes, when both your research and mine shows there were no cameraphones available in the US market at the time (im assuming he spent more than 5 minutes researching 911)

Not only were there no camera phones, but as I mentioned, most people like myself didn't even have cell phones in 2001. Didn't matter much though. The whole phone system (cell and land) was seriously overloaded that morning. I wasn't able to get a phone call through until about 11am.

 

[Gravy]

You didn't have to be in Lower Manhattan to see the WTC or Planes. Yes those on the tip may have had their views obstructed, but what about those on the BQE headed into the Battery Tunnel? Those on the Staten Island Fairy or at the terminal on Staten Island? Those on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, or even Queensboro bridge? Not to the mention those who live on the East River in Brooklyn or even on Roosevelt Island. Then you still have the people you live in New Jersey. On a clear day such as Sept 11th, you could see the those towers for miles, you could be on GW Bridge, look towards lower Manhattan and there they were.


*Addition/Edit* - I forgot the hundreds if not thousands of people who took to their roof tops after the first plane hit to see what was going on.

And thousands upon thousands who were watching the north tower burn from their office windows.

No-planers are ill and need help. Please do not play their game of arguing minutiae.

 

[Viper Daimao]

My inexpert opinion is that Dr. Greening doesn't believe in half the things he argues here (missiles? Moon landing hoax? come on). He plays devil's advocate with even the most outlandish theories to take the opposite side of most of us here who are convinced we know what happened that day. That he does it in a seemingly childish way that endears him to the conspiracy theorist side is unfortunate.

 

[HyJinX]

No planes? So the Naudet film is fake too?

Actually Redtail, neither the Naudet brothers or their film actually exists. Cover up?

Ask questions. Demand the answers you want.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's the quote for today: No-planers = No-brains!

Peace!

 

[Brainster]

Mike Swenson, a "Truther", has put up a page demonstrating some deliberate deception and video editing in September Clues. He takes on the "superhuman vision" claim particularly well, noting that what SC doesn't tell you about the woman that Bryant Gumbel was interviewing:

Notice the discrepancies in the two clips. It appears as though the producer(s) of September Clues decided to cut out a major portion of the audio from Theresa Renaud. The audio that was eliminated is significat because, in the original CBS footage, she claims that even though she was in Chelsea, she was in the "tallest building in the area and facing south".

 

[beachnut]

ref: It is probably likely that they saw a plane but I am convinced that there is nobody in New York who actually saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.

Call it ridiculous... But considering the fact that there are hundreds of people with cellphones, video cameras and all that equipment in New York, why are there so few authentic(ated) videos? And why did most of them appear after years?

There are several videos from many different angles of people jumping off the WTC, of the towers collapsing... Tons of that... But almost nothing (compared to the amount of other videos) of a plane crashing into there.

Pixel bleed, framerate-conversion problems... There is so much 'wrong' in the newsmedia coverage... The most powerful ones are just tiny little details...

TV reporter: "After making first contact with the Mi-- the plane..."

Watch September clues 6 from the guys livevideo homepage. It's just one week old... The audio analysis is just amazing. This guy really knows what he is doing. And there is really no explanation for that.

Do you guys actually think, everything went the way the media presented it? Planes crashed into the WTC, it collapsed, boo-hoo, patriot act passed rapidly, war in Iraq started...

If anything, this is quite obvious to me.

No plane? Where do you come from making such an idiotic statement? All you have to do is find someone who saw the planes with their eyes. Eyes. Where have you been for 6 years, in a coma?

Why do all these people in 9/11 truth really want to just protest the war in Iraq. Your credibility will go up if you do not make up lies about 9/11 when you really mean to protest the war in Iraq. What has happened to logic and rational thinking?

 

[Gravy]

Mike Swenson, a "Truther", has put up a page demonstrating some deliberate deception and video editing in September Clues. He takes on the "superhuman vision" claim particularly well, noting that what SC doesn't tell you about the woman that Bryant Gumbel was interviewing:

Conspiracists are too busy impotently bleating about video fakery to notice that they're the ones doing all the faking.