Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[yankee451]

Oh, come on, you can do better than that, I have faith in you.
That was a pretty quick pan to the left for a camera mounted on a tripod.

You clearly have only seen the impact clip.

 

[yankee451]

Putting it in a way that tries to avoid breaching the MA and is sensible... the thread has run its course. The responses as of now regardless of intent have served little more than to feed the "entertainment" for the OP.

I understand the stated desire to end this discussion. It must be uncomfortable.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yankee, you seem to have missed this one in the confusion of many posts this evening. So here it is again.

Comment please?

Nope. Your subjective and unsystematic hog-tied amateur interpretation of a limited dataset is not "proof" of anything.

Over 20 (maybe as many as 30) different videos have surfaced of the second 9/11 impact. These videos were taken at distances ranging from a few hundred feet from the tower to nearly 5 miles away, and range all around the compass. Here is one collection of them.

In this collection is a video shot from a nearby building looking up at the impact, (02:12 to 02:25) with another building between the tower and the camera. You want to compare the mass of the plane to the mass of the building? In that video you can clearly see the building flex to screen-right when the mass of the airplane hit the central column. Somewhere out there is a longer version of that clip showing the WTC oscillating for nearly 5 minutes after the impact. Do the math on the timing of that the motion of the building begins at a time AFTER the initial impact, consistent with the impact velocity of the plane reaching the building core.

Also in that same clip you can see the debris ejecta leave the building. The debris leaves two smoke trails, one spiralling and one not. The spiralling smoke trail originates at the corner of the building, and you can see this in nearly every video. That smoke trail is the right wing engine punching through the building, falling a thousand feet while travelling at about 450mph (I've done the math -- if you don't believe me do it yourself) and ending up at the intersection of Church and Murray. The other tail leads to a nearby rooftop where a chunk of fuselage more than 100'square was later found.

The videos are consistent.

The debris ejecta is consistent.

The "Pinocchio's nose" aka "hole that wasn't there" is consistent (both in timing and placement) with the air column of the fuselage exiting the building along with the fuel from the center tanks, which then explodes in a fuel-air fireball.

Your Nope Lamer fantasy only works if you toss out 9 tenths of the information. That's not science. That's lying to yourself and others.

 

[yankee451]

Oh, come on, you can do better than that, I have faith in you.
That was a pretty quick pan to the left for a camera mounted on a tripod.

That pan would be near impossible without having practiced the motion on a tripod. He was a rookie remember? Oh, I guess you wouldn't. You haven't watched it.

Anyhoo, he used expert panning skills to center the impact shot perfectly and then, to make it look like he's a rookie, he did that pathetic exaggerated zoom-in and zoom-out bit. Jules Naudet was an expert video photographer pretending to be an amateur; it's not even subtle.

 

[Robrob]

Uh huh, and if it ain't on the TeeVee, it didn't happen. Were you even breathing then?

Ad hom noted. Lack of evidence to contradict post also noted.

Here's another one who can't sit still for a fifteen minute video. Talk about short attention span theater! Get your complaints straight and get back to me.

Argument by YouTube. Why is it Truthers can't simply present their evidence in their own words but demand others do their homework for them?

Why EXACTLY should you take anybody's word for any of 9/11? Is it because it's easier than thinking?

Ad hom noted. Lack of evidence to contradict post also noted.

Except for the fact that a mostly hollow aluminum jet would be shredded like a head of iceberg on a lettuce slicer.

A 400,000 pound jet flying at 500 mph with wings full of 24,000 gallons of jet fuel impacts on a glass and aluminum facade. That it would penetrate into the WTC surprises no one.

Oh, and all the damage evidence indicates a plane didn't hit the tower.

Claim of fact not supported by evidence.

LOL!

The Naudet video proves he was using a tripod to film a "before" sequence of the undamaged tower and used it to overlay a fuzzy jet-thingy over the live shot.

Claim of fact not supported by evidence.

You guys are just like the "troofers" you whine about, you begin with a premise and then look for the evidence to suit it, rather than examining the evidence and trying to explain what caused it. Educational forum, indeed.

Claim of fact not supported by evidence. You claim to have evidence contradicting the null hypothesis, you should probably get around to providing it?

Tell you what, here's how you can really nail me:

Take the dimensions of a wingtip of a 767 and compare them to the wing tips on the gash.

Why is it Truthers pretend the jets should have punched a perfect aircraft shaped hole thorough the WTC?

I own the DVD, have watched it countless times and frame by frame. I am also well-versed with video cameras and tripods and can recognize stabilized tripod panning when I see it. I can also recognize when a camera is being removed from the tripod, also visible in the footage. Had you STUDIED it instead of just WATCHING it, you'd not be making such foolish statements.

Unsupported claim of Authority noted. Lack of evidence to contradict post also noted.

 

[Robrob]

That pan would be near impossible without having practiced the motion on a tripod. He was a rookie remember? Oh, I guess you wouldn't. You haven't watched it.

Anyhoo, he used expert panning skills to center the impact shot perfectly and then, to make it look like he's a rookie, he did that pathetic exaggerated zoom-in and zoom-out bit. Jules Naudet was an expert video photographer pretending to be an amateur; it's not even subtle.

So when he does something right it's evidence of his "expertise" and when he does something wrong it's evidence of his "expertise" as well?

Interesting POV.

 

[I Ratant]

Nommed in Awe.

.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIcTI0pdBPc

 

[Robrob]

So, no actual evidence to contradict 20-30 videos documenting the impacts?

Nope. Your subjective and unsystematic hog-tied amateur interpretation of a limited dataset is not "proof" of anything.

Over 20 (maybe as many as 30) different videos have surfaced of the second 9/11 impact. These videos were taken at distances ranging from a few hundred feet from the tower to nearly 5 miles away, and range all around the compass. Here is one collection of them.

In this collection is a video shot from a nearby building looking up at the impact, (02:12 to 02:25) with another building between the tower and the camera. You want to compare the mass of the plane to the mass of the building? In that video you can clearly see the building flex to screen-right when the mass of the airplane hit the central column. Somewhere out there is a longer version of that clip showing the WTC oscillating for nearly 5 minutes after the impact. Do the math on the timing of that the motion of the building begins at a time AFTER the initial impact, consistent with the impact velocity of the plane reaching the building core.

Also in that same clip you can see the debris ejecta leave the building. The debris leaves two smoke trails, one spiralling and one not. The spiralling smoke trail originates at the corner of the building, and you can see this in nearly every video. That smoke trail is the right wing engine punching through the building, falling a thousand feet while travelling at about 450mph (I've done the math -- if you don't believe me do it yourself) and ending up at the intersection of Church and Murray. The other tail leads to a nearby rooftop where a chunk of fuselage more than 100'square was later found.

The videos are consistent.

The debris ejecta is consistent.

The "Pinocchio's nose" aka "hole that wasn't there" is consistent (both in timing and placement) with the air column of the fuselage exiting the building along with the fuel from the center tanks, which then explodes in a fuel-air fireball.

Your Nope Lamer fantasy only works if you toss out 9 tenths of the information. That's not science. That's lying to yourself and others.

 

[332nd]

I own the DVD, have watched it countless times and frame by frame. I am also well-versed with video cameras and tripods and can recognize stabilized tripod panning when I see it. I can also recognize when a camera is being removed from the tripod, also visible in the footage. Had you STUDIED it instead of just WATCHING it, you'd not be making such foolish statements.

Yeah... I have an MFA in acting, I've done a lot of film work, there was no tripod you are wrong.

 

[332nd]

That pan would be near impossible without having practiced the motion on a tripod.

Why? Be specific.

 

[fess]

That pan would be near impossible without having practiced the motion on a tripod. He was a rookie remember? Oh, I guess you wouldn't. You haven't watched it.

Anyhoo, he used expert panning skills to center the impact shot perfectly and then, to make it look like he's a rookie, he did that pathetic exaggerated zoom-in and zoom-out bit. Jules Naudet was an expert video photographer pretending to be an amateur; it's not even subtle.

Oh, I didn’t watch it? Well first of all, the Naudet video was not supposed to be about 911, it was about the FDNY. At the time of the impact, he was filming a training exercise being held by members of the FDNY. The camera angle was much lower than when he stood up and panned to the left to catch the impact just before the “oh ****”. Quite a feat for a man using a camera mounted on a tripod. But then again, maybe he wasn’t as experienced as you say you are.

 

[Robrob]

That pan would be near impossible without having practiced the motion on a tripod. He was a rookie remember? Oh, I guess you wouldn't. You haven't watched it.

Anyhoo, he used expert panning skills to center the impact shot perfectly

Confirmation bias.

and then, to make it look like he's a rookie, he did that pathetic exaggerated zoom-in and zoom-out bit. Jules Naudet was an expert video photographer pretending to be an amateur; it's not even subtle.

"Hand waving" dismissal of a direct contradiction to your claim.

The non-sequitur adjective "pathetic" was used - why?

 

[yankee451]

Oh, I didn’t watch it? Well first of all, the Naudet video was not supposed to be about 911, it was about the FDNY. At the time of the impact, he was filming a training exercise being held by members of the FDNY. The camera angle was much lower than when he stood up and panned to the left to catch the impact just before the “oh ****”. Quite a feat for a man using a camera mounted on a tripod. But then again, maybe he wasn’t as experienced as you say you are.

Maybe you read the cliff notes and missed the sequence where he panned around the intersection prior to the big show, and maybe you've never tried to pan a video camera to perfectly capture a small, fast object in the center of your screen, much less one moving 440 miles per hour, and maybe you've never used a tripod.

 

[yankee451]

Why? Be specific.

He was allegedly not ready for it, which makes his pan and capture remarkable indeed.

Here's a flyby of a Tomahawk where the video photographer was ready for it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fRWWUB6q2ug

 

[332nd]

He was allegedly not ready for it, which makes his pan and capture remarkable indeed.

Its remarkable because he centered on the largest object in the skyline? Why?

Here's a flyby of a Tomahawk where the video photographer was ready for it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fRWWUB6q2ug

Notice how that was focused on the missle & Naudet was focused on the building?

 

[yankee451]

Its remarkable because he centered on the largest object in the skyline? Why?



Notice how that was focused on the missle & Naudet was focused on the building?

Why would he focus on the building, why would he think the jet that flew over his head at 440 MPH was going to hit the building?

Could he tell from the sound echoing off the walls of the city what direction it was traveling?

 

[tsig]

Yeah I see that. You know what I also saw? Planes hit the towers.

None of the mindless babble you've presented as "evidence" even comes close to countering that.

Hell maybe the images you've seen were made by that same magical hologram machine that made the planes.

Why exactly should we believe anything you show us? Faking a grainy internet photo would be infinitely easier then faking a plane hitting a tower.

This is true, we're being shown videos to prove other videos were faked.

 

[332nd]

Why would he focus on the building, why would he think the jet that flew over his head at 440 MPH was going to hit the building?

Could he tell from the sound echoing off the walls of the city what direction it was traveling?

Because it was the biggest thing in the skyline.

A jet passing over the tower would make a nice shot. He wound up getting the shot of a lifetime.

 

[tsig]

So, no actual evidence to contradict 20-30 videos documenting the impacts?

We've got handwaving, posturing, goalpost moving, bluster and BS but we ain't got no evidence.

 

[yankee451]

We've got handwaving, posturing, goalpost moving, bluster and BS but we ain't got no evidence.

Videos can be faked, and indeed all have been exposed as such, but the damage doesn't lie. People do though.