9/11: How they Faked the Videos

curious cat said:
I followed the link to the Steve's site - just of curiosity. As expected, I found it quite entertaining and discovered some clues to Steve's problem there. An especially significant was this one:

"My wife is a big fan of crime scene reconstruction shows, like CSI and NCIS. Although fictional, and usually heavy with government propaganda, these shows demonstrate crime scene reconstruction to the audience."

Well... if somebody is getting his knowledge from shows like this, no wonder he then invents stories fit for SciFi paperback. CSI show is so detached from reality, every real member of this group has to either laugh his head off or throw up every time it is on. But it does seem to have irresistible influence on some people and Steve may be up to something with his TV mind control paranoia :-).
Click to expand...


The full paragraph, here:

My wife is a big fan of crime scene reconstruction shows, like CSI and NCIS. Although fictional, and usually heavy with government propaganda, these shows demonstrate crime scene reconstruction to the audience. Often, even the tiniest clues can change the whole course of the make-believe investigation. In the real world, students of forensic sciences are taught that crime scene reconstruction is used to determine the actual course of a crime by limiting the possibilities that resulted in the crime scene, or the physical evidence as encountered.
Click to expand...

And the very next paragraph:

According to the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction, the definition of crime scene reconstruction is:

“the use of scientific methods, physical evidence, deductive reasoning and their interrelationships to gain explicit knowledge of the series of events that surround the commission of a crime”.
Click to expand...
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

Reading is FUNdamental.
 
Last edited:
So how many series of events occurred that resulted in the physical evidence as found?

One.

How many "right answers" does that make?

One.

How many truthers started at the beginning by examining the crime scene?

One

How many Skeptics started there?

Zero
 
Why is anybody even responding to this nonsense? The poster is obviously either a poe or mentally ill. You will never persuade him with evidence or even get him to accept reality. Why he hasn't been banned for spamming this site is ridiculous.
 
FAILED fake video claims FAIL

Wolrab said:
Why is anybody even responding to this nonsense? The poster is obviously either a poe or mentally ill. You will never persuade him with evidence or even get him to accept reality. Why he hasn't been banned for spamming this site is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

typing practice?

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AECNqm4V2o



yankee451 said:
The evidence you're avoiding proves all the videos of the alleged plane crashes were faked.
Click to expand...

you got no evidence - you don't have a clue what evidence is -
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Sure there is. Naudet was centered on the WTC for hundreds of frames prior to his turning around to capture the "gas leak" sequence. This means he was able to capture footage of the undamaged towers from the same place as he would capture the fireball. His being centered on the WTC prior to the "impact" of flight 11 is proof he was using a tripod, which he claims he wasn't using.
Click to expand...

You lie as usual editing the video to make your claim reasonable, but if anyone looks at his video, then you see the lie he was filming tow FD individuals and PANNED to shoot the towers. Even in the video, the jet can be seen briefly just prior to impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43472_center-1024x648.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43577_center-1024x578.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43609_center-1024x581.png[/qimg]

Last frame before impact:

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-44606_center-1024x576.png[/qimg]

He was using a tripod. It was staged. This is proof of foreknowledge. It is also more evidence in support of my conclusions, since Naudet's actions fit the explanation I provided perfectly.
Click to expand...

You continue to lie, yes the brothers were there filming a test not using a tripod, when they heard the jet flying overhead and turned to film the impact. Naudet's actions do not fit your explanation.
Why didn't your respond?
bknight said:
Did I say that I saw the impact? No I said the airplane, not CGI as it was live, approach the WTC complex and disappear BEHIND WTC 1 and then a fireball erupts out of WTC 2,
Now answer the other questions what happened to the plane when it disappeared behind WTC 1? It never appeared again. And it wasn't as you say CGI as it was live. Go rethink your weak answers.

"m" word?
Click to expand...
 
bknight said:
You lie as usual editing the video to make your claim reasonable, but if anyone looks at his video, then you see the lie he was filming tow FD individuals and PANNED to shoot the towers. Even in the video, the jet can be seen briefly just prior to impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY



You continue to lie, yes the brothers were there filming a test not using a tripod, when they heard the jet flying overhead and turned to film the impact. Naudet's actions do not fit your explanation.
Why didn't your respond?
Click to expand...

The truth hurts. Badly.

You're wrong. Surely you own the DVD and can check for yourself.
 
yankee451 said:
Sure there is. Naudet was centered on the WTC for hundreds of frames prior to his turning around to capture the "gas leak" sequence. This means he was able to capture footage of the undamaged towers from the same place as he would capture the fireball. His being centered on the WTC prior to the "impact" of flight 11 is proof he was using a tripod, which he claims he wasn't using.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43472_center-1024x648.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43577_center-1024x578.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43609_center-1024x581.png[/qimg]

Last frame before impact:

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-44606_center-1024x576.png[/qimg]

He was using a tripod. It was staged. This is proof of foreknowledge. It is also more evidence in support of my conclusions, since Naudet's actions fit the explanation I provided perfectly.
Click to expand...

We get you, Steve. You've never been good at anything in your life and you're angry about it.

Naudet was a professional cameraman who was out shooting B-Roll footage of a reported gas leak to get some practice time in with his camera. His camera had image stabilization built in to provide a smooth image. All his footage proves is that he was an experienced cameraman with a quality camera. He shot the footage like any foreigner in NYV would by framing the fire fighters against the tall buildings of the city to give context of scale and setting. Domestic NYC cinematographers tend to focus on people and life on the streets, which we'd see in footage shot later that day.

If this is the best you have then you need to understand you're actually going backward and considering you've started from zero evidence you've gone from a clown nose to a clown nose that honks.
 
MattNelson said:
Photographers captured the plane from as far as 14 miles, using film with negatives that Steve knows how to fake, I guess.

Cumins got 2 shots of the 2nd plane from Montclair, NJ. One was on the cover of People Magazine. Others got 2 shots of the plane, too. Because they saw it coming. Duh.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html#Robert_A_Cumins
Click to expand...

And? You can trot out all the amateur videos you like. They don't change the damage evidence that proves a plane didn't cut the hole.
 
Axxman300 said:
We get you, Steve. You've never been good at anything in your life and you're angry about it.
Naudet was a professional cameraman who was out shooting B-Roll footage of a reported gas leak to get some practice time in with his camera. His camera had image stabilization built in to provide a smooth image. All his footage proves is that he was an experienced cameraman with a quality camera. He shot the footage like any foreigner in NYV would by framing the fire fighters against the tall buildings of the city to give context of scale and setting. Domestic NYC cinematographers tend to focus on people and life on the streets, which we'd see in footage shot later that day.

If this is the best you have then you need to understand you're actually going backward and considering you've started from zero evidence you've gone from a clown nose to a clown nose that honks.
Click to expand...

Brutal. Good luck with that self esteem issue.
 
yankee451 said:
Sure there is. Naudet was centered on the WTC for hundreds of frames prior to his turning around to capture the "gas leak" sequence. This means he was able to capture footage of the undamaged towers from the same place as he would capture the fireball. His being centered on the WTC prior to the "impact" of flight 11 is proof he was using a tripod, which he claims he wasn't using.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43472_center-1024x648.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43577_center-1024x578.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-43609_center-1024x581.png[/qimg]

Last frame before impact:

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Frame-44606_center-1024x576.png[/qimg]

He was using a tripod. It was staged. This is proof of foreknowledge. It is also more evidence in support of my conclusions, since Naudet's actions fit the explanation I provided perfectly.
Click to expand...


He's clearly not using a tripod. The first pic the camera is at waist level with the firemen then he goes even lower (about ankle height) for the next two pics. The last pic he has the camera at about head height (on his shoulder?) and has panned the camera upward.

And even if he was using a tripod, it wouldn't matter. The camera isn't on lock down, you see. He's still panning around and changing the camera's viewing angle in each shot which rules out your realtime CGI nonsense.

And besides, he said he wasn't using a tripod. Maybe you should start with that. I hope you didn't send him any angry letters demanding him to just tell the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom