• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Absolute proof of video fakery

Perhaps you could summarize the huge volume of evidence you have to support the official story. it would give us something to practice our reading skills on.

We have video of planes crashing into buildings. So we believe its safe to say planes crashed into buildings. Unless you can provide evidence of something else striking the building.
Well can you?

We dont need to find evidence to back our claim. We are call it as we see it.
Your the one with the crazy ideas so please prove them!
 
Simon Shack is, pure and simple, an uneducated idiot.

Anyone with any knowledge of fire fighter SOP could probably tell from his captions on the footage of the crew checking for the gas leak that he is uninformed. He seems to think that it is unusual that the street would be blocked while fire fighters are wandering around the traffic lanes putting gas detectors through the gratings. Maybe he is just too stupid to realize that you do not let a possible source of ignition, like a hot catalytic converter enter an area with a potentially explosive atmosphere.

Shack starts on stupid and does not move much from that point.

His comments that the aircraft appears transparent shows that he has no idea what the concept of "focus" is all about.
Ever with auto-focus, a ca,era will not clearly record an object beyond where it is aimed and focused. Auto-focus would adjust to the nearest building in line of sight. That was not the tower or the aircraft.

Now, if the dimbulb had looked at all that footage, he would realize that the smoke from the fireball cast a shadow on the facade of the building, and that its angle was pretty nearly the same as the dark "penciled-in" mark that he calls a "photo-shopped gash." It was a shadow. It isn't there in later frames, and it is out-of-line with the actual wing prints.

Anyone who considers any of Shack's blather "evidence" needs to take a course in drawing and to go talk to a fire fighter about how they manage traffic in the vicinity of a gas leak.

Somewhere, there is a short yellow bus short a passenger.
 
I can't believe ANYBODY who calls themselves an investigator, whether they actually believe the 'official story' or not, wouldn't at least be aware of the vast body of evidence that is a matter of the public record that was presented to support it. Any time I bring up that this evidence exists, and some idiot says "Sure it does. show it to me", it's time to shut the lights out on the crazy train and bring it into the station.
 
Maybe they were thermite filled, mini-nuke, laser missiles. What do you think Mchapman? Plausible?
No, they were filled with sharks with laser beams strapped onto their heads!
 
So all the TV station sin the world and all the film crews and all the civilians who are responsible for many of the films are all in on it? AND the millions of people who watched in person are all in on it too?

And you guys seriously don't understand why people call you crackpots?

Remember, trying to point out that one video is faked (even doing a shoddy job of it) is no an argument. ALL the live videos have to be proven faked as well as all the people responsible for them.
 
So Steven what is your take on why there are so many eye witnesses to the plane hitting the building again?
 
But there were 100s of videos taken by 100s of people. They all have to be fake as well, do they not? And then don't forget the millions of us who were there in person and not only saw it, but felt and heard it.

And that's not proof of composting being used on the live videos. You have to prove that the capture on those videos was absolutely impossible without composting and have to prove that the people involved did it. This means that all the news organizations and all the news crews who were there filming it.
 
Also, one of the news channels on this 9/11 aired the footage they had from 9/11 as it happened and uninterrupted. It most certainly did show a plane hitting the building. The funny thing was that while the impact was caught live on camera, the reporters talking did not notice it and had to rewind the tape to see what just happened. Of course anyone just looking at the video could see, but the reporters were busy talking and not watching the video. They also were on the phone with someone live who screamed after seeing it in person and that's what prompted the reporters to rewind the footage and look at it.

I still can't believe there are nutjobs trying to claim there were no planes.
 
Ace Bakers crap isn't proof of anything. He is deluded and has no idea what he is talking about. Apparently, Steven, you are as well for even taking him seriously. A large commercial jet really hit the tower. I know because I saw with my own eyes, as did countless other people in the metro area. Therefore, TV fakery is nonsense because it makes zero sense to fake video of an event that really happened. It would just make the conspiracy that much more complex for no gain at all.
 
Last edited:
Most systems would be able to remove a plane more convincingly than add a plane to a live shot. Either way, you would also have to account for the eyewitnesses.
 
Perhaps you could summarize the huge volume of evidence you have to support the official story. it would give us something to practice our reading skills on.

Gravy's done this:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Now granted, since you're hellbent on disproving Gravy's research, I don't know if you'll get much out of it, but at least I can point this out so that lurkers and new folks so they can understand that the supporting evidence is indeed out there, and plentiful.


As voluminous as Gravy's site is, it's still not 100% complete. No one source can be. But it covers a heck of a lot on it's own. As a small excerpt of examples:
... and so on. Granted, much of it is from the point of view of refuting conspiracy fantasies, but much of it is either links to original information, or like the NORAD section, links to analyses of original information. The point is that volumes of evidence can be discovered through a reading of his site alone, let alone the other sites on the net, like Debunking 911, 911 Myths, non-"debunking" sites like the NTSB FOIA info release page (where you can get FDR and CVR reports, flight plan studies, etc.), the US Court's Moussaoui trial evidence page, the NYTimes 9/11 Oral Histories page, and so on.
 
Only two live videos, neither one of which shows a plane hitting anything.
What is this emphasis on the live images about? Of what significance is that? There are some FORTY other videos recorded of the jet impacts that day! All taken from different locations. All recorded by different cameras. All taken by different people, some professional news camera operators and others private citizens.

Then there are all the still camera photographs taken.

Then there are all the direct eyewitnesses.

Then there is all the physical evidence.


The no plane proposition is insane. And you seem incapable of realizing it.
 
I know Ace Baker was unsuccessful at finding any airplane witnesses to talk to him. I imagine he would love to talk to Stanley.



Yes, I was similarly unsuccessful at climbing Mount Everest. Like Ace, I never made the attempt. In addition to being seriously ill, Ace Baker is dishonest. He was in NYC for his debate with Steve Wright. He showed no interest in visiting Ground Zero and asking random people if they or anyone they knew saw the crash of either plane. He would have heard quite a few stories, but he understands that very well. Ace will never seek out witnesses for a simple reason: after he's called them liars, his bag of tricks is empty.
 
Address the video or pipe down.

OK.

1) Unreal or transparant-looking plane: Camara was focussed at nearby persons. When panning to building, it was not perfectly focussed. An effective resolution of approximately 5 yards was the result.

2) First explosion: The energy released by the collision alone equaled a fairly large explosive charge. This atomized a large quantity of fuel into the air and created the observed fireball.

3) Second explosion: The first fireball acted much like a fuel aerosol bomb and consumed all the oxygen in the impact area. Some seconds later, fresh air was drewn in by the rising fireball, and fuel inside the building flared up, seen through the gash left by the wing.

4) Missing hole from wing-tip: Invisible with the poor resolution due to imperfect focus. You will notice that while the vertical partitions are just visible, you also cannot see the window-bands (which are a larger and more visible feature than the wing-tip part of the gash):

5) "Pencilled-in" dark band: This band follows a window-band and could come from windows being burst by the fire on that floor, or it could simply be a shadow of the fire-ball. That it seems to come into view is again a focus artefact. You will notice that other details on the building also tone into view as the camara focuses on it. First, the face of the building is seen as a uniform gray surface (very poor focus), then the vertical bands become visible, and finally more detail. During the focussing process, the dark band also materializes.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Which is more crazy? A no planer, or debating a no planer for 9 pages?

I find no planers especially fascinating. I'm simply flabbergasted that somebody actually believes something like that, but alas you are correct; debating with them is crazy as hell.
 
Someone was getting into an argument with a mod over on ATS on that very subject. The mod witnesses it hitting the second building, and the poster was pretty much calling him a liar.

It can get ugly at times...
 

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