Debunking Pinnochio's Nose

[Foolmewunz]

It is epistemologicaly preferable to to think the video is fake for a number of reasons.

1. The "debris" that exits the opposite side of the building is indistiguishable from the nose of the aircraft. No one has proposed a mechanism by which this could possibly occur.

Why do you continue to say this? It is wrong, wrong, wrong!

The image you're showing is a product of fore-shortening, and the play of light and reflection on the debris, dust, and smoke. That is the mechanism you seek. No more is required.

This is like a primer in constructing a Conspiracy Theory. You start with a wild idea, then you go google-crazy,youtube-whacky, and photoshop-frenzied, searching the world for anything that will support the original notion. Ignore or dismiss as lies anything that doesn't agree with your pre-determined conclusion, and use non-evidence as a proof. (Hey, it's not in that video of the bass fisherman on Lake Winnipeg, so it's got to be fake!)

 

[ktesibios]

I will present the results of my velocity study when I have them, whatever they may show.

Wouldn't it have been a great deal smarter to do the same sort of basic quantitative homework that Dave did before making a claim based on mere eyeballing of a poor quality video on the 'net?

When you take the time to test your hypotheses against reality before ballyhooing them you get the chance to find out that they're wrong privately, instead of making a monkey of yourself by having someone else do it in public.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sorry to have been scarce. My laptop has died completely, it will be about a week before I am able to rebuild it. Currently I have almost no software and my internet access is limited.

I'm calling BS.

You live in a world where space based laser weapons capable of causing damage to office buildings that not even 22nd century torpedoes can do, are easily constructed and carried in the bay of 20th century space shuttle yet you expect us to believe that you couldn't just tell your replicator "One early 21st century laptop computer, please."?

Why don't you just admit you spent all your replicator rations on life sized Judy Wood dolls?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

In all honesty you should really stop talking about this stuff. You may be a film composer, but you clearly know virtually nothing else about filmmaking or television broadcast.

The scenario you're proposing cannot have been keyed. It's simply not possible.

The bottom line is, what you are proposing - the insertion of a computer generated aircraft into a live broadcast - simply is not possible. It certainly was not possible in 2001.

-Gumboot

Actually, I made a chroma key music video a long time ago, before 9-11. I do know what I'm talking about. Chroma key works as follows:

Two video signals are combined. One particular color value (typically blue or green) becomes transparent in layer A, allowing layer B to be visible in those areas. This is old school technology. The more recent trick was getting the overlayed image to move along with camera movement. They now have systems which track the panning, tilting and zoom of the camera, and manipulate the overlaid image to match.

The TV news weather is a very familiar example of chroma key, as the actor is standing in front of a green screen, but to us at home it looks like the whole wall has a satellite map on it.

It may even turn out that strictly old school chroma key was used. We'll see what the results of my velocity study teach us.

The aircraft could have been CGI, but there is no reason that it couldn't be a real video. If I were doing it, I would have shot a real 767 flying north simultaneously from a great variety of angles, done so at around 9 a.m. on a clear day, and then taken all the backgrounds out. This would have been done ahead of time obviously. We'd be left with videos of a real 767 flying against a transparency.

Locations are then scouted to most closely match viewing angles. It turns out that the perps screwed that up somewhat, as there is at least one example where two second impact videos appear to show the plane at two different points in 3D space, at the same instant in time.

 

[gumboot]

Actually, I made a chroma key music video a long time ago, before 9-11. I do know what I'm talking about. Chroma key works as follows:

...

It may even turn out that strictly old school chroma key was used. We'll see what the results of my velocity study teach us.

I know exactly what keying is. You cannot insert an aircraft impact and explosion onto a plate of the WTC through chroma-keying. It's simply not possible.

The aircraft is obscured by the towers at impact. That means the helicopter shot of the towers is the foreground plate. Now you might argue that you could key the sky, except that the lighting, exposure and angle of the sun makes this impossible.

Keying the sky is not as easy as you might think anyway. This shot was taken from a great distance away. The UV haze (which is clearly visible in the shot) causes bleed from the sky onto background objects such as the towers. Thus any attempt to key out the sky would result in partial loss of the buildings.

The aircraft could have been CGI, but there is no reason that it couldn't be a real video. If I were doing it, I would have shot a real 767 flying north simultaneously from a great variety of angles, done so at around 9 a.m. on a clear day, and then taken all the backgrounds out. This would have been done ahead of time obviously. We'd be left with videos of a real 767 flying against a transparency.

The aircraft is the background plate. It has to be keyed behind the buildings.

Your entire premise is a farce. If they are prepping plate shots in advance of the event, there's no need to do anything live - they can simply insert pre-prepared footage into the broadcast.

Your problem is there are dozens and dozens of videos of the impact, from a range of sources. Your problem is there are dozens and dozens of still photos of this event.

Your problem is hundreds of thousands of people saw this event WITH THEIR OWN EYES. You cannot explain this away. Your theory is utterly ridiculous.

-Gumboot

 

[NeoRicen]

So.... we're COMPLETLEY ignoring ALL the witness testimony and other videos?

Did they either:
-Insert planes into all the videos from a bunch of NWO cameramen, have fake witnesses and stop anyone in New York with a camera who is not part of the NWO from filming.
OR: A plane hit the building...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Also it absolutley can't be CG, in 2001 especially it couldn't render that well live.

Also unless they had 1000 foot bluescreens it would be EXTREMELY obvious it was keyed. I mean REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY obvious.

 

[Corsair 115]

The TV news weather is a very familiar example of chroma key, as the actor is standing in front of a green screen, but to us at home it looks like the whole wall has a satellite map on it.

Yes, and take a good look at the edges of the person, you'll spot the characteristic traces which reveal the background has been inserted.

The aircraft could have been CGI, but there is no reason that it couldn't be a real video. If I were doing it, I would have shot a real 767 flying north simultaneously from a great variety of angles, done so at around 9 a.m. on a clear day, and then taken all the backgrounds out. This would have been done ahead of time obviously. We'd be left with videos of a real 767 flying against a transparency.

My first thought is to say you apparently have little idea just how complicated high-quality visual effects work really is. That reaction aside, I've said it before, but I guess I'll have to say it again:

The three things which always betray a shot is a special visual effects shot:

1) Motion.
2) Lighting.
3) Detail.

If you've got any kind of decent eye, you'll spot one or more of these things which reveal an FX shot to be exactly that. I could spot nearly all the shots which were miniature shots in The Lord of the Rings films simply by the way it looked (a miniature just doesn't quite look the same as an actual full-size object in terms of lighting and detail). It's subtle I grant you, but when you know what to look for, you can spot it practically every time.

What you're proposing would not work, as the tell-tale signs I mentioned would reveal themselves quite clearly. You'd have had to photograph that 767 from ALL of the necessary angles (which is in the area of 40). Then you've got the explosion itself, that has to be added along with the light that explosion casts. And that's often where VFX shots fail in terms of detail: they'll have supposedly bright or glowing objects in the frame, and yet the object does not cast light onto the surroundings or actors. I expect most folks don't notice this sort of thing, as it is subtle, but I sure notice it.

Then the act of compositing that pre-existing aircraft footage live would be crude at best. It would be readily apparent. Which is exactly why VFX shots often take months to complete, as ALL the elements of the shot are composited together so that there's only one piece of film to run. If you're trying to pass something off as real, you need a lot of time and resources to do it convincingly, especially to fool VFX eagle-eyes like me; it is most definitely NOT something you can knock off in an afternoon.

EVERY single video of the aircraft impacts into the WTC towers show NONE of the typical signs of a VFX shot. Not a single one. Add to that the thousands who SAW the aircraft with their own eyes, and your theory is reduced not just to the level of implausibility but to absurdity.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1. The "debris" that exits the opposite side of the building is indistiguishable from the nose of the aircraft. No one has proposed a mechanism by which this could possibly occur.

This is based on a post of yours in which you included six frames and asked responders to determine which were the nose of the aircraft and which the debris. The pictures clearly fall into two separate groups (ACD and BEF) and were correctly identified as such by Myriad, but you have yet to respond with a clear statement of which set was which. Your last reply to Myriad was self-contradictory, as you stated that his first answer had 2 wrong and 1 right and yet by simply interchanging the two groups he had correctly matched the pictures with the frames. Your postulate of indistinguishability is therefore not supported, and arguably disproved, by your own evidence.

2. The plane enters the picture within 3 frames after a zoom in, quite a coincidence.

Coincidence, or causal connection? A perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the cameraman on board the helicopter, concentrating on the towers, only saw the approaching airliner as it came close to the towers, and zoomed in just in time to catch the impact. It's hardly implausible that there would be a helicopter camera filming the towers after the first impact, nor that the cameraman would react in this way. There is no coincidence established.

Oh, and it's five frames. Read the OP.

3. The plane does not appear in the wider shot, even though it would have to be there.

I haven't seen the wider shot, but I've seen other videos of the impact where the airliner fades in and out of visibility due to video compression and similar coloration to the background.

4. The video does a quick fade to black immediately after pinocchio's nose appears. As explained ad nauseum, this cannot be the signal cutting out. It is either the output from the helicopter being faded down, or it is the input from the helicopter being faded down on the control room console.

Plenty of other posters have addressed this one. We'll have to agree to differ there.

I will present the results of my velocity study when I have them, whatever they may show.

Why didn't you do the velocity analysis yourself before you started jumping to conclusions? It took me about an hour to do your homework for you. It required the following software:

Microsoft Windows Clipboard
Microsoft Paint
Microsoft Internet Explorer (for access to this forum)
A pencil and paper.

Whether your laptop is alive or dead, if you've got a computer good enough to post on this forum you can replicate my analysis.

You stand accused of intellectual laziness. Stop making excuses and do your homework.

Dave

 

[Par]

It is epistemologicaly preferable to to think the video is fake for a number of reasons.

1. The "debris" that exits the opposite side of the building is indistiguishable from the nose of the aircraft. No one has proposed a mechanism by which this could possibly occur.

And what was wrong with the explanation that is it in reality debris that, on a blurry video, looks somewhat similar to (or even indistinguishable from, if that were true, which it isn’t) a nosecone?

Furthermore, you cannot account for that fact the following video actively shows the artefact to be debris without begging the question by presupposing the existence of video falsification.

2. The plane enters the picture within 3 frames after a zoom in, quite a coincidence.

Imagine I were to fire a gun randomly at a building that consisted of 10,000 bricks and the bullet happened to hit brick number 4,812. Given the fact that the probability of hitting that specific brick is a mere 1 in 10,000, is it then preferable to believe that the whole thing was a charade and that, in reality, I fired a blank while a sniper on the grassy knoll specifically targeted brick number 4,812?

3. The plane does not appear in the wider shot, even though it would have to be there.

I've not seen it.

4. The video does a quick fade to black immediately after pinocchio's nose appears. As explained ad nauseum, this cannot be the signal cutting out. It is either the output from the helicopter being faded down, or it is the input from the helicopter being faded down on the control room console.

You must be mentally ill. You have offered no reason at all the think the glitch couldn’t be the result of a signal interruption. In fact, others have shown it to be very likely the result of a signal interruption. If that wasn’t enough, you yourself admitted to me that even if we are to assume the fading of the video was performed manually, there’s no reason to think it was performed intentionally.

I will present the results of my velocity study when I have them, whatever they may show.

You may as well not bother.

 

[A W Smith]

Ace's laptop.

We know why your laptop died. Typing too much bull(rule8) on it. Also explains what happened to Greenings comp when you e-mailed him bull(rule8) as well.

 

[gumboot]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the aircraft enters frame moments after a zoom in at all. Indeed I think it's evidence that the footage is genuine.

A good news cameraman (and believe me, anyone given the task of operating a multi-million dollar wescam system is going to be good) always has one eye on their frame, and the other on their surrounding environment. They're always trying to predict what's going to happen next so they can capture it.

Now, the pilot of the helicopter is going to be hearing air traffic communications, so there's a good chance he's heard that there's hijacked aircraft somewhere out there. Reports would be floating around by then that an aircraft flew into the towers.

Taking into account the size of the hole, it'll take a smart person about 30 seconds to work out what has happened.

When UA175 was coming in you had the local TRACONs (approach control) as well as the airport towers looking for it. The helicopter pilot is likely going to know there's a hijacked aircraft headed for New York. The sharp-eyed camera operator catches a glimpse of a low-flying fast moving airliner headed towards the towers.

If he's anything other than totally inept he's going to tighten his frame onto the towers, because at this point it's a safe bet that planes about to hit one of them.

On the other hand, if you're faking the entire thing, you want to eliminate anything at all that suggest you knew before hand what would happen. For ultimate effect you want the impact of UA175 to be sudden and unexpected. The last thing you'd do is re-frame immediately before it happened.

-Gumboot

 

[Travis]

Here are 44 clips of the impact. 41 are of flight 175. Note their consistency despite being from all kinds and qualities of source equipment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThPTduiA5jI

 

[aggle-rithm]

On the other hand, if you're faking the entire thing, you want to eliminate anything at all that suggest you knew before hand what would happen. For ultimate effect you want the impact of UA175 to be sudden and unexpected. The last thing you'd do is re-frame immediately before it happened.

-Gumboot

This is true of a LOT of troofer "evidence". In their minds, NO ONE was smart enough to think of making the "fakes" look realistic. In order to believe it's an inside job, you have to believe that the conspirators were simultaneously evil geniuses and hopelessly inept, leaving behind obvious clues for Scooby and the gang to find.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here are 44 clips of the impact. 41 are of flight 175. Note their consistency despite being from all kinds and qualities of source equipment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThPTduiA5jI

First NWO agent: You know that fake "live" shot we've been planning for years? Well, we screwed it up.

Second NWO agent: Oopsie! Well, that's OK. Just make all the other faked shots look 100% consistent with the live shot.

First NWO agent: I'm on it!

Second NWO agent: Oh, and make sure that none of the hundreds of people working on this project find out about it.

First NWO agent: Gotcha!

 

[tacodaemon]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the aircraft enters frame moments after a zoom in at all. Indeed I think it's evidence that the footage is genuine.

A good news cameraman (and believe me, anyone given the task of operating a multi-million dollar wescam system is going to be good) always has one eye on their frame, and the other on their surrounding environment. They're always trying to predict what's going to happen next so they can capture it. ...

Also, didn't Dylan himself try to disprove the no-planers by posting a bigger version of that footage in which you can make out the plane flying in at the right side of the frame at the very beginning, when the footage is zoomed out all the way to the Hackensack River? Wouldn't surprise me if the cameraman saw it too and -- even if he didn't think it was going to be another deliberate crash -- might have thought it something worth zooming in for.

 

[JC Fla]

No. See Holmgren.

Wow. There was a web page full of unbridled paranoia. You read this, and believed it? You give the government WAY too much credit for it's creative ability. As a government employee for 8 years (Disinfro Agent, Level 4) I doubt the US government could pull off even 1 tenth of this without it coming completely apart, or some idiot running their mouth. Step back and really think about this, and apply Ockams razor, and see what you come up with.

 

[Travis]

First NWO agent: You know that fake "live" shot we've been planning for years? Well, we screwed it up.

Second NWO agent: Oopsie! Well, that's OK. Just make all the other faked shots look 100% consistent with the live shot.

First NWO agent: I'm on it!

Second NWO agent: Oh, and make sure that none of the hundreds of people working on this project find out about it.

First NWO agent: Gotcha!

You gotta cut them a break seeing as how they're doing all this on super equipment no one has even heard of before! OR does that mean it should be flawless?

 

[gumboot]

Also, didn't Dylan himself try to disprove the no-planers by posting a bigger version of that footage in which you can make out the plane flying in at the right side of the frame at the very beginning, when the footage is zoomed out all the way to the Hackensack River? Wouldn't surprise me if the cameraman saw it too and -- even if he didn't think it was going to be another deliberate crash -- might have thought it something worth zooming in for.

Absolutely.

The human eye can see a heck of a lot more than a camera can. It's very common to spot things with your eye that are actually in your frame, but that you can't see in the frame. A human eye can easily resolve an airliner flying several miles away. A camera cannot.

-Gumboot

 

[PhantomWolf]

So Ace, what you're saying is that Stanley Praimnath is a liar?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Sorry to have been scarce. My laptop has died completely, it will be about a week before I am able to rebuild it. Currently I have almost no software and my internet access is limited.

Might I suggest purchasing YouTube for Dummies, good book, yep yep, before purchasing any new software.

Please stay off the Internet until further notice.

Another good book while waiting to be granted permission to access the Internet:
Lucy, you gotta lotta No-Plane 'Splainin to Do!

Please start your autobiography, suggested title:
Nebulous Neurons, Un-snapped Synapses and Dead-end Dendrites (The Brain That Never Was)

Do not approach the Internet.