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

Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

Still. if WTC7 had been inside the semicircle of cameras as a huge fireball it would have completed the picture. Pure stage management. The 'shocking and awing' of the American people would have been all the more spectacular.

But all the real evidence points to something much more mundane. What exactly is missing in your life that you need to make up asinine conspiracy theories like this? Does it make you feel more important to "know" something only a select few truth seekers know, and that you can rise above all the sheeple who actually don't realize that every single last bit of that compelling evidence they have looked at is faked?
 
Still. if WTC7 had been inside the semicircle of cameras as a huge fireball it would have completed the picture. Pure stage management. The 'shocking and awing' of the American people would have been all the more spectacular.

Why don't you just pretend it was? You can claim that you've seen pictures of WTC7 exploding in a dazzling ball of flame. You can even pretend that there's a video, and that the soundtrack makes it clear that there was such an intense boom as to deafen everyone for a mile around you. Don't worry if you can't produce any actual evidence of the stuff you've dreamed up; we'll understand.

Dave
 
But all the real evidence points to something much more mundane. What exactly is missing in your life that you need to make up asinine conspiracy theories like this? Does it make you feel more important to "know" something only a select few truth seekers know, and that you can rise above all the sheeple who actually don't realize that every single last bit of that compelling evidence they have looked at is faked?

What is it so important about it to you anyway Twinstead ? I can understand us Truthers arguing this stuff day in day out. We believe passionately n what we are doing- but what's in it for you debunkers ? Don't you guys have any life at all ? Why would you come here every day to argue with people you say are crazy ?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I should have made it more explicit for the willfully dumb. You need to compare the live compositing of the plane's approach to the post-production compositing of the impacts. Only when the nine conditions are met is live compositing possible.

You see, Ace Baker has been proposing a post-production model for his whacked-out no-plane theories all along and he doesn't even understand why that is. And Ace Baker should really make it clear that these aren't rules for compositing (whether live or post); they're just his argument as to what aspects of what transpired that day that make him think 'no-plane'.

They most assuredly aren't "rules" that anybody who works in television production would recognise as such.
 
No... I'm sure that bardamu doesn't exist...

but when you do the laundry some socks are bound to fall out.
 
Tied in with the position of the cameras is the question of why the North Tower was hit first.

What you mean is that the north tower was hit first and on its north face.

Judging by the number of times the impact videos were broadcast on TV on 9/11 and during the following days, we can assume that acquiring footage of the plane crashes for the networks was a crucial part of the plan

hence the term "news media"

D'uh!

Since the first crash was 15 minutes before the second, the TV cameras filming from the studios north of the WTC would be guaranteed to be pointing at the towers at time of the second crash. But the way it turned out, the TV cameras were all on the wrong side of the WTC and the impact videos were fluked by freelancers and amateurs. They risked not having any footage at all of the crash itself because the impacted wall was on the blind side of the TV cameras.

Actually the cameras were on the right side. The way you compose the senario, the plane came in from the wrong side.

Now let's examine a little very very simple planning by the terroists;
They will hit the north tower by flying as direct a path to it as they can. Thus coming in from the north or northwest, the Hudson River aiding in pointing the way. This is the crucial hit, the very first one, speed and suprise are on their side all the way.
For the second aircraft there are other considerations that need to be taken into account to help make this a success. there will be a lot of smoke from the first impact. The wind along the seaboard is predominantly either on-shore, or from the west. This means the most likely clear path would be from the south. So its either try another direct path and risk having to contend with obscuring smoke, or take the plane south first and then head for the second tower. A quick check of the NYC weather that morning would confirm that a south face hit would be unhindered by smoke.

It would have made much more sense for the perps to hit the South Tower first, so that the cameras filming from the TV studios would be in place to capture the second plane as it crashed into the north face of the North Tower. The only logical reason for them not to do it that way would be if there was something about the impact of the second plane that needed to be hidden.

NOPE!
Another reason would be to hit the tower that presents itself best on the most direct path. The most direct path is in from the NW and to hit tower 2 from that direction would put tower 1 in the way if you were not dead on. Coming at tower 2 from either south or east would make it a clear shot.

Obviously, this argument is not directed at the debunkers, but planehugging truthers should give it some thought.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Im sorry, but please people put this disgusting poster on ignore. No planers should be ignored.
 
What is it so important about it to you anyway Twinstead ? I can understand us Truthers arguing this stuff day in day out. We believe passionately n what we are doing- but what's in it for you debunkers ? Don't you guys have any life at all ? Why would you come here every day to argue with people you say are crazy ?

Ahh, yes, the old "if we are so crazy why do you persist in argueing with crazy people?" ploy.
I have a science and technology background. Since I was in early grade school I have always liked math and science and not only have my career choices been along those lines but also some of my hobbies. I am passionate about what science is. Thus I am equally passionate when others make claims that are counter to what I know to be correct.

I started argueing against crazy people when I first encountered people on an internet forum who believed that the Apollo missions were faked. I was reading absolute nonsense science from them and let it be known that they were making ridiculous claims (Like "man cannot survive going through the Van Allen belt")
Then Sept 11/01 came along and soon thereafter another group argueing utter nonsense. I cannot stand by while others attempt to propigate nonsense in the name of 'truth'.

Crazy by itself is not neccessarily a bad thing, however "wrong" simply must be countered.

Clear now?
 
Last edited:
Im sorry, but please people put this disgusting poster on ignore. No planers should be ignored.

I kept wanting to give him one more chance to perhaps explain his thought process, but I'm not optimistic. I will probably take your advice. I do find folks that don't think that certain real things are ... real ... fascinating for some reason.
 
The fact does remain that three buildings were wired for demoliton

which you assert despite there being nothing at all to bolster the contention.
yet only two were hit by planes. They cannot have planned to demolish WTC7 in the way that they finally did.

Which requires that a vast and complicated conspiracy have been taking place. Something which you again assert with nothing to bolster the contention.

It looks just ike a forced error as does the flight 93 fiasco. Maybe connected forced errors. 93 was held up on the runway and had it's takeoff delayed for an hour by a fire.

Just as a matter of interest, have a look at the attached layout. Would the cameras have been well positioned to take in a giant fireball from WTC7 at around the same time as the strike on WTC2 ?

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtccollapse/flash.htm

Well let's look at the 3 buildings that were targeted that day. Two towers, near a major waterway,that were known the world over and which were the tallest buildings in the skyline of the city that is the very epitome of US economic power and wealth; and the largest office building in the world, a uniquely shaped structure surrounded by parking lots and lying against a major waterway, and which is the epitome of US military power. They are all well known world wide and symbols of American power and have features that make them very easy to locate from the air.

WTC 7 does not meet the criteria of world wide fame as the others nor is it particularily evident amidst many other highrise structures and it would be more difficult to pick out from the air than the other three.

So where was flt 93 headed? The two other structures that come to mind fitting the same criteria that the other three do are the Whitehouse and the Capitol building. However the Whitehouse, while more well known around the world than the Capitol bldg, is not as large, lies amidst a veritable forest and is not particularily obvious or easy to find from the air. The Capitol has less world renown but is the major seat of political power in the USA, is quite large and an easily spooted domed structure.

My bet would be that it was headed for the Capitol bldg.

WTC 7 was unknown to the vast amjority of Americans let alone us foreigners. I had never heard of it until Sept 2001. In fact I was unaware that there were more buildings that shared the name "World Trade Center" besides the towers.
 
I kept wanting to give him one more chance to perhaps explain his thought process, but I'm not optimistic. I will probably take your advice. I do find folks that don't think that certain real things are ... real ... fascinating for some reason.

Indeed, it is about time to close down on this thread.

Bill has nothing to offer other than bald contentins and bardamu is simply deluded and has been showing us he is deeper and deeper into that delusion as the pages mount up.
 
Yes, you'd love me to speculate on exactly what happened that day, then you could pick through my hypothesis and bog me down for ever more in irrelevant details. Well, my time is better spent searching for evidence and arguments I can use to demolish the official conspiracy theory, then use that knowledge to rub your noses in your own poo.




That's because he goes along with the 19 hijackers fable and assumes the demolition of WTC7 was a last-minute insurance job.




The cameras pointing from the north would have been guaranteed to catch a giant fireball from WTC7. I'm not sure whether you're suggesting they were planning to crash flight 93 into the building or just fake it. Either way, it's just speculation and it gives the debunkers a straw man. The forced error might be connected to the report that 50 storeys had gone down at 10:45am while the area was still hidden by dust.






Al Qaeda was the name of the database that the CIA, MI6 and Mossad used to keep a list of their Islamic assets in the Middle East, who they used to destabilize the Soviet Union. According to Sibel Edmonds, they were still using those assets right up to 9/11.




That would be risky. The locals there are not too keen on Westerners now, since many of their women and children have been slaughtered by invaders claiming they were acting in my name.




One might say you're the lord of the context-free manor.

Coward.
 
Yup... that entire post is one big sign of cowardice... But what do you expect from twoofs?
 
Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
... the flight 93 fiasco. ...
Why do you disgrace the Passengers on Flight 93? They figured out 911 in minutes; why have you failed to make progress after 8 years?

The nose-out is complete garbage; only used by people who lie about 911.
 
Last edited:
If bardamu and bs cannot give a simple resume of their versions of the events that took place in New York on 9/11,then what are they drivelling on about?
 
More cameras would have just demonstrated that the south side was aflame from top to bottom and that there were no people placing demolition charges and that there was no man-made demolition when WTC7 collapsed.

Picture it this way. The North Tower is struck by a plane. It is quickly on TV. Many people get on the phone to their friends and family. ' Turn on your TV ' they say 'A plane has just flown into the WTC ' So thy do- in their millions just in time to see two more jets scream in and plunge into two more WTC buildings which explode in giant photogenic fireballs. The waiting hovering semicircle of cameras gratefully lap up this legendary footage which we have all seen millions of times since.

The traumatised, terrified,virtually catatonic American pubic will now allow the administration to turn 50% of the world into a glass desert at will.
 
Last edited:

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