September Clueless

[Corsair 115]

The twin tower strike videos are already bad enough.

Uh, no, they're not, as anyone who actually watched the videos when they were originally broadcast would know. If you're trying to dig up broadcast-quality copies from internet sources years after the fact, then no, you're not going to find much in the way of quality in many, perhaps most, downloadable files commonly available.

How difficult would the compositing be?

Much more difficult than you think for broadcast-quality video and 35mm film negatives. Getting all the tiny little details right is time-consuming and difficult for anyone with a good pair of eyes for spotting such things.

There are no shadows to deal with in any of the live Twin Tower shots, the later ones only have shadows on the building itself, an easy surface to plot shadows on (yet they still screwed it up).

Seriously, read up on how important lighting and camera angles are to what is taped/photographed. The reduction of a three-dimensional world to a two-dimensional television screen or photographic print can do odd things to how a scene looks.

...I think they are videos of a real plane.

This is correct.

These would have been shot and prepped ahead of time. They could only attempt the composite videos they planned for.

This is hopelessly incorrect and is clearly spoken by someone who has a terrible, terrible eye for film/video imaging in general and special effects in particular.

 

[T.A.M.]

Now this has got to be one of the simplest yet most devastating attacks against TV Fakery that I have ever seen over at LCF.

I'm just speechless and apparently Ace Baker and Uncle Fetzer (and all the rest) should just give up their nonsense. I just got a ton of respect for IVXX now.

That is kind of like saying you have gained respect for the moron who made the village idiot look bad...lol

The twin tower strike videos are already bad enough. Why would the perpetrators want to create more evidence against themselves? Do I really have to explain this?

There is a large amount of photos and those security video frames that any composited Pentagon video would have to agree with. It would have to be made from some previously unseen video, obviously. Surely such videos exist, but then, what else do those videos show?

How difficult would the compositing be? Are there trees in the way? Does it show the light poles? Does the explosion look anything like the shape of a plane? (I doubt it). What about the shadows? There are no shadows to deal with in any of the live Twin Tower shots, the later ones only have shadows on the building itself, an easy surface to plot shadows on (yet they still screwed it up). Plotting shadows across uneven ground, bushes, etc. is extremely difficult.

Anything which had a clear Boeing in it would disagree with the security footage frames, as whatever is in those frames is too small.

As I've said, I don't think the plane videos are CGI, I think they are videos of a real plane. These would have been shot and prepped ahead of time. They could only attempt the composite videos they planned for. Actually creating them from scratch after the fact is not a good idea.

So they made this CGI stuff, KNEW IT WAS AWEFUL, and then said, "Shaite man, we better give up this CGI stuff or we are gonna get caught".

OMG...the insanity has left me speechless...nearly.

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Face it Ace, 17 seconds was enough to alter a live video but a fellow truther has pointed out how absurd your theory really is and he did it simply. Not only did IVXX say that but another fellow truther Hierosis pointed out the stupidity of your "fade to black" idea by pointing out that the antenna on the WTC wasn't just for show but it transmitted TV signals. Why do you and your fellow zombies have trouble understanding that the plane's impact would cause a flicker? It even caused lights to flicker on and off as can be seen in the Burger King sign (when the impact is viewed from the street (another point made by your fellow truthers at LCF). Face the facts Ace, your pet theory has been sliced, diced and neatly slam dunked (with a 360).

1. UA175 allegedly struck WTC2, the broadcast antenna was atop WTC1.

2. The antenna atop WTC1 provided television and radio broadcast signals to the public. It had nothing to do with relayed signals between news helicopters and their studios. Those are transmitted by microwave, are relayed off orbiting satellites, and received by dish antennae located on the roofs of TV studios.

3. The phenomena observed is a fade to black, not a "flicker". It is not noise, nor a signal interruption. It is a fade to black on the background image only, not the entire TV picture. The superimposed logo graphics were unaffected.


You are wrong. Try again.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is hopelessly incorrect and is clearly spoken by someone who has a terrible, terrible eye for film/video imaging in general and special effects in particular.

Have you read my paper yet? What is the explanation for the instability of the velocity? Why do these instabilities increase upon stabilizing the video?

 

[Alex C]

3. The phenomena observed is a fade to black, not a "flicker". It is not noise, nor a signal interruption. It is a fade to black on the background image only, not the entire TV picture. The superimposed logo graphics were unaffected.


You are wrong. Try again.

Maybe because the logo's are mixed in by computers at the studio? The places that receives the signal?

 

[Corsair 115]

Have you read my paper yet?

No, and I've told you why: anyone who's starting position is that video of the aircraft impacting the WTC towers on 9/11 are faked has equal credibility to me of someone claiming to have a paper demonstrating that the video of the Apollo astronauts on the Moon are all faked.

The starting position is one of such self-evident foolishness that I can't be bothered.

Think about what I've just said. I've just said that I regard your claims in this regard as being equal to that of those who claim the moon landings were faked. Do you think the moon landings were faked? (Have you ever checked out the visual "anomalies" there? Why, it'd be enough to keep you analyzing for years!)

What is the explanation for the instability of the velocity? Why do these instabilities increase upon stabilizing the video?

Lousy source footage. Measuring errors. Improper procedures. Investigator's bias. All kinds of things, really. But you don't need to do anything other than watch video footage, any video footage, repeatedly at normal speed to detect fakery. If you can't clearly spot a problem at normal speed, then your eyes are no good at spotting visual fakery. It really is that simple.

 

[~enigma~]

1. UA175 allegedly struck WTC2, the broadcast antenna was atop WTC1.

2. The antenna atop WTC1 provided television and radio broadcast signals to the public. It had nothing to do with relayed signals between news helicopters and their studios. Those are transmitted by microwave, are relayed off orbiting satellites, and received by dish antennae located on the roofs of TV studios.

3. The phenomena observed is a fade to black, not a "flicker". It is not noise, nor a signal interruption. It is a fade to black on the background image only, not the entire TV picture. The superimposed logo graphics were unaffected.


You are wrong. Try again.

Ace....I really think you should learn to read. Would you be nice for a second and tell me in the post of mine you quoted. Who did I say said what? If you have a problem with anything said by anyone at LCF I think it would be wise of you to go over there and tell them but I can be sure you wont because you are AFRAID to have a fellow truther hand you your tush.

 

[steve s]

Okay, that may be a bit over the top....

No, it wasn't. That was my exact reaction to his craziness.

Steve s.

 

[Unfit4Command]

I've asked this question before, but I never got a reply. Hey Ace, what caused the damage to the Twin Towers if not airliners?

 

[fuelair]

If your family had been on one of the planes it would be real. Guess you do not even think about the families destroyed on 9/11 because you are what? Oh, you want the truth? Wrong. You have made up lies. You see trucks burned by fire, and you listen to the insane Judy Woods, who was fired for her idiot ideas, who says it was a beam weapon. You take real evidence and mess it up and make up lies. Your ideas on 9/11 are wrong. Go lecture your lies on the convention ciruit and feel good you did not have to suffer the lost family members from 9/11. Make up your lies, only you can correct your pathetic lies and false information. You are free to make up stuff and do what you want. But I do not have to like it, and I can label it as the lies they are. Your information on 9/11 is just made up junk. This 9/11 junk you present, negates all your other accomplishments.

Like most of the Twoofers TS simply can't handle the truth because it, like reality, makes him pointless and uninteresting.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I've asked this question before, but I never got a reply. Hey Ace, what caused the damage to the Twin Towers if not airliners?

Don't know. Probably missiles, along with pre-planted Hollywood style pyrotechnic fireball. The Chopper 4 video appears to show something coming in from a high angle. When that video was replayed on the evening news, the flying object had without doubt been replaced by a plane, and the entire shot had had it's background removed and replaced .

Have you seen those?

Unfit, you're right about the tower debris not landing in the footprint. What's wrong with these other guys, saying >80% landed in the footprint? Can't you straighten them out?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Don't know. Probably missiles

Oh. My God.

 

[~enigma~]

pre-planted Hollywood style pyrotechnic fireball.

Was the pre-planted fireball made of Styrofoam and painted with model paint?

 

[Unfit4Command]

Unfit, you're right about the tower debris not landing in the footprint. What's wrong with these other guys, saying >80% landed in the footprint? Can't you straighten them out?

Talk about this in the proper thread, I don't want to derail this one.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87749&page=7

And I don't disagree that most of the buildings fell into the footprints.

 

[rwguinn]

I stilll don't get it.
The TV broadcasts were faked, on a delay.
What about the people in the streets who actually watched the 2nd plane hit--as well as a few who saw the first one?
MIB flashy thingie?

how/what/who? and why?

stupid is a woefully inadequate word and does not describe the depths to which this particular hypothesis descends...

 

[stateofgrace]

Don't know. Probably missiles, along with pre-planted Hollywood style pyrotechnic fireball.

I cannot be bothered with you anymore Ace, you are not worth it. But every once in a while you say stuff that is so appalling I feel the need to respond.

So here is the deal Ace, super sleuth, go tell the Families of Flight 11 and 175 the absolute garbage you spread about on this forum. Can you do this? Are you man enough to put your ABSOLUTE GARBAGE to the real people that have to live everyday with the dreadful loss of their loved ones? No, of course not, because ACE, you are insane, insensitive and completely off your head.

Here are the people you mock.

Take a good look Ace. And here are the people on the other non existent plane.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/mem...n/page100.html

Go and tell their families that you a non entirety, a part time musician, a completely non qualified investigator knows the truth.

 

[Corsair 115]

When that video was replayed on the evening news, the flying object had without doubt been replaced by a plane, and the entire shot had had it's background removed and replaced.

Is the still and video imagery of the Apollo moon landings faked? Yes or no?

 

[leftysergeant]

The only flying objects in the sky besides the airliners and whatever other odd high-altitude flights were passing by, were helicopters manned by police and news agency crews. No known missile could have creatred the damage seen in the footage, and ANFO/Gasoline charges big enough to do that would certainly have been in somebody's way during the day. No freaking way to do it secretly in an occupied building without someone's remembering it.

 

[beachnut]

Ace, you could be the person with the dumbest ideas about 9/11.

Don't know. Probably missiles, along with pre-planted Hollywood style pyrotechnic fireball. The Chopper 4 video appears to show something coming in from a high angle. When that video was replayed on the evening news, the flying object had without doubt been replaced by a plane, and the entire shot had had it's background removed and replaced .

This is real bad tripe. This is so bad, why do you make up stuff about 9/11?

Thousands of people saw 175 with their eyes making your claim a big lie.

Beam weapons and imaginary planes are the two dumbest 9/11 truth ideas. You have posted the dumbest ideas on the internet continuously. Are you worried someone may not already know your ideas on 9/11 are the worst ones, and clearly lies?.
Millions of people know 175 hit the WTC, we saw it live, thousands of people know 175 hit the WTC they used their eyes, and you make up lies on purpose. This is too easy to label you a liar, since you are making this up and ingnore the facts.

Millions of people know 175 hit the WTC, we saw it live, thousands of people know 175 hit the WTC they used their eyes, and you still make up lies on purpose. This is too easy to label you a liar, since you are making this up and ignore the facts.

Can you sign up at LCF and spread this junk there, it is a rule of the FCC you have to post this junk at the fictional forums too.

Just one question. Ace you do know you can use real facts at this sub forum, you do not have to use lies and junk about 9/11? You could use real stuff about 9/11. Do you have some real stuff about 9/11? So far you have only lies.

 

[332nd]

I quit watching Sept.clues when they had the "Hmmmm how did this woman see the second plane hit from so far away!?!?!?" moment about 3 minutes in.