• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Absolute proof of video fakery

Fakery? If there was fakery, certainly the buildings should still be standing...yes?


You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!


Perhaps; but by whom? You know, thanks to the proliferation of computer technology, even the common citizen has access to complex editing devices, don't you? And you do realize that some unscrupulous individuals might take advantage of their access to editing devices to further their beliefs, don't you?

Look, God damnit! Some people place entirely too much faith and emphasis on YouTube videos. Stop it, already! Stop it!
 
Last edited:
Fakery? If there was fakery, certainly the buildings should still be standing...yes?





Perhaps; but by whom? You know, thanks to the proliferation of computer technology, even the common citizen has access to complex editing devices, don't you?

Watch the video all the way through. Its only about 6 minutes long. It is irrefutable unless the maker has altered the naudet footage and I don't think he has.
 
The Naudet brothers were with members of the FDNY when this supposedly doctored footage was shot. Your "absolute proof" renders them complicit as there has been no one from the FDNY to come forward and either confirm what that video alleges, nor claim that the Naudet brothers were with impostors.

Do you believe members of the FDNY to be complicit in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy?

If not, then how do you reconcile their involvement in the video you linked?
 
thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg
 
The Naudet brothers were with members of the FDNY when this supposedly doctored footage was shot. Your "absolute proof" renders them complicit as there has been no one from the FDNY to come forward and either confirm what that video alleges, nor claim that the Naudet brothers were with impostors.

Do you believe members of the FDNY to be complicit in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy?

If not, then how do you reconcile their involvement in the video you linked?


Address the video or pipe down.
 
And for the record, mchapman, the video is too distant and blurry to make any kind of rational determination.

P.S.

I did watch the whole video.
 
Until I saw this video I thought video fakery was ridiculous

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

but this video proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can actually see 30 feet of the gash in the North Tower being pencilled in!

I can't wait for someone to use the same procedure to "prove" that the State of the Union address was actually delivered by a trained penguin.
 
And for the record, mchapman, the video is too distant and blurry to make any kind of rational determination.

P.S.

I did watch the whole video.


No you didn't.

The video is plain as day, and just look at the comparison to the news footage 15 minutes later.
 
No you didn't.


YES, I DID! Thank you for presuming to know what I know.


The video is plain as day...

No, it's not. It's about as plain a fog on a foggy day. If you can make a determination from this video, you are only comfirming what you expected to find...or an idiot.
 
Wow.

I assume you have put this through the same intense scrutiny as you did any of Gravy's information.

Which experts would you ask, in order to evaluate the claims in this video?
 
Notice the title of the video is...ironically, and fittingly..."9/11 Amateur."
 
Okay. So let me get this straight. The "absolute" proof is this video? And all the proof rests solely on a non-experts opinion of what should have happened?

First, if special effects were used it would be even more easy to detect them. How about getting a high quality version of the sequence. Then take a still frame of the gash and analyze the pixels in a image editor. If it was "photoshopped" than it would have no variance in pixels. Even the best artists can't fake the randomness.

Secondly, if again special effects were used. Why does this guy believe that these artists. Seemingly faking this video would not know how explosions work? I mean if you are going to fake something you research how it behaves. You want to simulate water...you watch how water behaves.

Third, he suffers from the same mistaken belief as many truthers. That the WTC was a 100% dense object without space in it; which is wrong..there was lots of space in it. Meaning things can travel through it, if they have enough force to break through the materials. Which of course have space in them.

Forth, the gash is in the other videos. I don't understand how this guy missed it. Do you want to know why he missed it. Because he was so busy looking to find evidence of fakery that he never comprehended the idea that shadows are perceived differently from different angles. Meaning the Naudat footage is from bellow catching the shadow where the face of the WTC was made uneven from damage, whereas the other footage is more straight on. Meaning the shadow in those shots isn't pronounced, but the damage is still visible if you actually look. Ironically he points to it while saying it isn't there.

Fifth, and this it the most important thing....THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF EYE WITNESSES TO THE EVENT!!!!!!!!!!!

"irrefutable" is not the word I would use to describe this dudes presentation, given that I can already poke holes in it through just a casual viewing.

Go back the drawing board and try again. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Wow.

I assume you have put this through the same intense scrutiny as you did any of Gravy's information.

Which experts would you ask, in order to evaluate the claims in this video?


I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.

Which experts do you ask when you are determining the color of the sky?

It is totally plain to see what is going on in the video.
 
Address the video or pipe down.
Ah, there's brilliant thinking.

A valid point is raised -- there were firefighters with the people who filmed this video, who witnessed the whole thing. Surely, had they witnessed something different than what is in the video, or felt the video had been edited, they'd say something. Yet none of them have done so. Add to that the fact that, besides the video evidence, you have the testimony of hundreds of people who state that they did, in fact, see a plane. Add to that the fact that the people who were on the 'faked' plane were real people, and really did disappear (as their grieving families will testify).

But, in the normal manner of the dedicated truther, you latch onto one tiny item, and absolutely refuse to address any other issues or objections.

To accept your theory, I would first have to accept that hundreds of eye witnesses are wrong, or lying. I would first have to accept an incredible conspiracy of literally thousands of people, most of them average Americans, some of who actually saw their loved ones off at the airport, saw them get on the plane, and whose loved ones have never been seen again.

So...where did that plane go? Radar tracks it, from its takeoff to its crash...surely, had it been diverted, that would have been noticed? And then what happened...they landed the plane at a secret airport somewhere, and massacred everyone on board?

You see, the problem here is that I'm faced with two questions, two possibilities:

1) That an entire plane, and hundreds of people on that plane, disappeared without anyone at all knowing how or where. That people who actually witnessed the event, and swear to seeing a plane, are wrong or lying.

2) That one single YouTube video, that is not at all clear, and represents only one of many videos of this tragedy, is wrong.

Thing is, the former is far, far harder for me to believe, or explain, than the latter. So there is really little or no purpose in discussing the latter, unless/until you can come up with adequate, reasonable answers to the former.

I'd point out that the families of those who died on that flight will consider their evidence of the losses they have suffered to be far, far more conclusive than a blurry YouTube video. And it is shameful that someone like you, in playing amateur detective, implicitly belittles or denies the honest testimony of literally thousands of Americans who suffered as a result of this event -- the Americans who testified that they saw an actual plane fly into the building; the Americans who testify that they saw their loved ones get onto the plane in question, and never saw the plane or their loved ones again.

So let me go back to your first quote, and tell you that it is you who had better pipe down, until such time as you can provide adequate answers to those questions, and have a reasonable reply to those people.
 
Last edited:
Look, mchapman, I'll give you that it does seem to be improbable serendipity that someone happened to film the first strike. The second strike...no way, because the second tower is right next to the first tower and all cameras in NYC were trained on the first tower after the first strike. But, in order to believe what you are seemingly professing, that at least part of FDNY and the Naudet brothers knew the strike was going to happen, you'd have to believe that the person who effected the attack wanted the FDNY and Naudet brothers to know so they could capture it on camera. Why someone would want their criminal activities captured on camera is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps you could devise some story to explain away this conundrum.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom