FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
CGI / Hologram / No Planes
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 41, 42, 43 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

moylan wrote:
Thanks for vetting my phrasing, er, card... carc... whatever.

Sarcastic tone - noted.

Quote:
Is anyone serious in defending a methodology consisting of speculation about artefacts in grainy low-res video?


Absolutely!

Even low-grain video can show whether Newton's Laws were obeyed in the so-called videos.

Newton's 3rd law says that all energy created at impact is distributed evenly between the impacting entities - regardless of which one is moving and which one is stationary (that's relativity, for you).

I.E. when the plane hit the building, we should have seen lots of very energetic splash-back. Certainly enough to be captured in low-res video. I don't see anything like this in any video that I have viewed.

Newton's 1st law says that an airplane will slow down when it hits something. This slowing down should be entirely visible in lo-fi videos, even when the airplane was traveling at +-550mph. Again, this law was violated and the plane simply glided through the tower at the same speed as it approached the tower (WTC2 videos).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey I found someone who saw the second plane hit Tower 2 only he had an unfortunate accident and can't answer to it's validity. This is how the PTB continue to drive that nail! Pound pound pound. Note the last sentence, it's priceless.

Quote:

The success of "100 Things" inspired dozens of like-minded books, with titles such as "100 Things Project Managers Should Do Before They Die" and "100 Things Cowboys Fans Should Know and Do Before They Die."

Freeman graduated from the University of Southern California in 1983, briefly working for an ad agency in Newport Beach before moving to New York to work for Grey Advertising.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Freeman watched the second plane hit the World Trade Center from his apartment just blocks away. He moved back to Southern California to be closer to his family



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/26/national/main4384978.shtml


Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hombre wrote:
Hey I found someone who saw the second plane hit Tower 2 only he had an unfortunate accident and can't answer to it's validity.


How, actually, could one see this?

NIST says that the airplane was flying about 560mph (IIRC).

That's 560 * 5280 = 2,956,800 feet per hour.

That's 49,280 feet per minute.

That's 821 feet per second.

Imagine the case of standing at street level.

What was the street width in NYC? 60 feet? 90 feet? The streets were concrete canyons. Tall buildings everywhere, obstructing one's view, except directly upwards.

A plane flying by would have covered 90 feet (to be generous) in 0.1 seconds.

That's 1/10th of a second.

The human mind can perceive something in that short a space of time, but I doubt that the human mind could clearly identify an object in that amount of time.

If someone was above street level, a similar principle would apply. If one was close to the building, the amount of time that the airplane was in view would be very short (esp. if one didn't expect to see the airplane and turn one's head towards it). The further away from the building one was, the longer the viewing time would have been, but the distance would have greatly reduced the resolution / identification ability.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just imagine what it would be like if all the videos and photos were somehow magically rounded up by agents running all over New York (how they knew where to look is anyone's guess) and TV-Fakery-faked, so that everyone would deceived into believing something for which there is ample evidence, as against something for which there isn't a scrap.

What really makes the TV-fakery notion a classic is that no proof is required. Just engage in vicious attacks on the character of anyone stubborn enough to say what they saw, and speculate as to what would or should be the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8523

PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No Planes. There were no planes on 9/11.
The No Planes Theory. CGI feed. No Planes.
World Trade Center no planes. WTC1. WTC2.
No Planes Struck the World Trade Center.
No Planes Hologram 9/11. CNN Fakery 9/11.
Mainstream media 9/11 Fakery. No planes.
Blue Screen 9/11. Inserted into live feeds.
No Planes. Disappeared into. No Planes.
Wing. Faded in. Sliced No Planes. CGI.

Ok, all the above are specially for the Google Bots.
Happy munching you little chums. Gnaw away.

This is to definitively link this post to the No Planes issue.

And to put it on the record that:

The No Planes Theory is TOTAL, unmitigated, drivel.
The No Planes Theory is facile gibberish.
The No Planes Theory is delusional dribble.
The No Planes Theory is deliberate contamination of 9/11 Truth.
The No Planes Theory is spew from disturbed minds.
The No Planes Theory is worthy of a particularly dim four-year-old.
The No Planes Theory is laughably incoherent.
The No Planes Theory is DEAD.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3223
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nose out foxed out september clues 9/11 planes hoax TV fakery fade black planes Warren Cuccurullo 9/11 tv fakery Andreas von Bülow socialservice simonshack total411 ewing2001 TheWebfairy heavyplastician pistoffin nico haupt bsregistration dippypoggy september clues 9/11 octopus some birds cgi morgan reynolds


------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Hayworth: Don't they ever stop migrating?

----------------------------------
Sebastian Sholes, fisherman in diner: Hell, maybe we're all getting a little carried away with this. Admittedly a few birds did act strange, but that's no reason to...
Melanie Daniels: I keep telling you, this isn't 'a few birds'! These are gulls, crows, swifts...!
Mrs. Bundy, elderly ornithologist: I have never known birds of different species to flock together. The very concept is unimaginable. Why, if that happened, we wouldn't stand a chance! How could we possibly hope to fight them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
No Planes. There were no planes on 9/11.
The No Planes Theory. CGI feed. No Planes.
World Trade Center no planes. WTC1. WTC2.
No Planes Struck the World Trade Center.
No Planes Hologram 9/11. CNN Fakery 9/11.
Mainstream media 9/11 Fakery. No planes.
Blue Screen 9/11. Inserted into live feeds.
No Planes. Disappeared into. No Planes.
Wing. Faded in. Sliced No Planes. CGI.

Ok, all the above are specially for the Google Bots.
Happy munching you little chums. Gnaw away.

This is to definitively link this post to the No Planes issue.

And to put it on the record that:

The No Planes Theory is TOTAL, unmitigated, drivel.
The No Planes Theory is facile gibberish.
The No Planes Theory is delusional dribble.
The No Planes Theory is deliberate contamination of 9/11 Truth.
The No Planes Theory is spew from disturbed minds.
The No Planes Theory is worthy of a particularly dim four-year-old.
The No Planes Theory is laughably incoherent.
The No Planes Theory is DEAD.


The Planes Theory is TOTAL, unmitigated drivel that requires us to believe that aluminum airplanes can fly through steel buildings like ghosts.

The Planes Theory is facile gibberish that requires us to believe that four plane crashes can occur with no positively identifiable wreckage left behind (excluding shoddy engines under scaffolding and plantable, undamaged four-windowed fuselage piece on some roof, right beside a stairway).

The Planes Theory is delusional dribble that buys the idea that numerous videos of the same event showing contradictory flight paths can all be real.

The Planes Theory is deliberate contamination of 9/11 Truth that has been viciously promoted by virtually every known fake.

The Planes Theory is spew from disturbed minds that have this bizarre idea that the Perps would risk using remote control technology to fly hard-to-control jumbo jets into small targets.

The Planes Theory is worthy of a particularly dim four-year-old who believes in fairies, unicorns, and the fantasy that aluminum airplanes create cartoon holes in steel buildings without leaving any wreckage on the inside of the hole.

The Planes Theory is laughably incoherent, trying to convince us that contradictory flight paths and dark brown skylines represent an authentic collection of videos.

The Planes Theory is DEAD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8523

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Planes Theory is TOTAL, unmitigated drivel that requires us to
believe that aluminum airplanes can fly through steel buildings like
ghosts.

Yeah, fo' sure. Here's another faked video requiring us to believe
that a puny bird weighing ounces can take out a multi-ton jet engine.
Who do they think they are fooling?!

Quote:

Here's news.
If I hit your head with a plastic bag full of water --at 500 mph.
It'd break your frikkin head right off your body.
Think about it.

For more than a few seconds.

Yeah, I know your skull is harder than water.
But em..... Ya wanna try it out and let's see?

Ever stand at the side of a Grand Prix circuit when a Fomula 1
goes by at about 170 mph? It almost sucks your eyeballs out.

Now image the same thing only three times faster, and the thing
that is going that fast ....is a plane weighing something over 200,000 lbs.

Kapoowww!!

Quote:
The Planes Theory is facile gibberish that requires us to believe that four
plane crashes can occur with no positively identifiable wreckage left
behind (excluding shoddy engines under scaffolding and plantable,
undamaged four-windowed fuselage piece on some roof, right beside
a stairway).

Yeah, I know what you mean. No positively identifiable
wreckage, except for the positively identifiable wreckage.

More news. When a jet hits a building at 500 mph, the impact
and explosion shatter it into literally thousands of tiny pieces.

Go figger, eh?

Quote:
The Planes Theory is delusional dribble that buys the idea that numerous
videos of the same event showing contradictory flight paths can all be
real.

There were numerous videos of the plane strikes, yeah?

Lucky all the videographers were working for the government then.

I bet the people who pulled off 9/11 must have breathed a sigh of
relief after it was all over. "Phew," one of them must have said to
the other. But the other guy just answered. "Told you not to worry,
chances of anyone in NYC having a video camera were slim to nil."

Lucky there were no eyewitnesses too. Whadda break.

Ever consider that foreshortening, camera angle, and parallax
might explain the so-called contradictory flight paths?

Ever consider that you've been carefully set up with a few
deliberately flaky videos to kick-start the No Planes Theory?

Quote:
The Planes Theory is spew from disturbed minds that have this
bizarre idea that the Perps would risk using remote control technology
to fly hard-to-control jumbo jets into small targets.

Who needs remote control?!?
Don't tell me you bought that disinfo?

Ever hear of cruise missiles? They use a computerised terrain map
to hit targets with an accuracy of a couple of feet. Better than any
human being can do. Lots better.

Quote:
The Planes Theory is worthy of a particularly dim four-year-old who
believes in fairies, unicorns, and the fantasy that aluminum airplanes
create cartoon holes in steel buildings without leaving any wreckage
on the inside of the hole.

Reckon it must be one of those crazy twists of physics that when
you hit a large building with a plane, it tends to leave a hole in the
building of same shape as the plane that hit it.

Last I heard, there are teams of physicists working on the problem
to try and explain why that is. We may never know.

Same problem with the wreckage. For some wierd reason, planes
that impact buildings at 500mph and then explode thunderously
seem to break up into tiny pieces. Fuk knows. Mystery, I suppose.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
911conspiracytv



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's say that a "few deliberately flaky videos" were made to "kick-start" the no planes theory, as Fintan said. Which ones are we talking about?

It would be GREAT to find some common ground on this issue. Agreed?

I've been collecting the videos and putting them on this YouTube channel in one of the 2 playlists:

http://www.youtube.com/user/911footage

Or you can just describe the video here and I'll try to find the one you're thinking about.

_________________
http://www.911conspiracy.tv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is my favorite Boeing 767 dressed up in drag Laughing Laughing




And this is my favorite cruise missile that knocked off a UFO in mid flight!



Oh hell start lining up the cold soldiers. It's 5 o'clock somewhere!

Hombre'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8523

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
911conspiracytv:
Let's say that a "few deliberately flaky videos" were made to "kick-start"
the no planes theory, as Fintan said. Which ones are we talking about?

Well that could be done with any of the 9/11 WTC videos.
You've got an example in your video collection:

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjEqT-4knaI

Anonymous amateur videographer. Source video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUgdk...
-- plane edited out at 6:20. The SAME video abbreviated by same user at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8hAvP... where the first frame is
before the plane, but subsequent frames are after it.

Please see other examples of the plane being edited out, or missed.
No doubt this example fosters no plane theory.

Tactics could include editing the plane out, or blurring one wing
or a host of other tricks to foster the no-planes-theory. Can be
done by amateurs or even by the pros in TV-land prior to the
footage being broadcast. No planer's can't even think that they
could be deliberately primed like this. That's knee-jerk 9/11
investigation of little value to the rest of us.

While I'm at it let me elaborate on the potential use of cruise missile
technology on 9/11:

Take one standard Boeing autopilot-enabled passenger aircraft.

Take one standard guidance-controlled cruise missile.

Take a remote New Mexico airfield where your tech guys can play
around with marrying a guidance control system to a Boeing.

There's a wide array of guidance choices for achieving this.

Such as Boeing's AGM-86 ALCM, using a terrain contour-matching
guidance system (TERCOM). Or a Global Positioning System (GPS)
coupled with inertial navigation (INS). See: Litton Guidance and Control.
Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is another associated technology.
As is Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) which can boost the
accuracy of GPS. Another cruise missile guidance system is the Digital
Scene-Mapping Area Correlator (DSMAC), which compares a photograph
of the target with the picture provided by an onboard camera.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litton_Industries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System


But many of these technologies may be over-complex. The targetting
is very simple here, and could use a combination of GPS and beacon
signals on the targets. The key requirment is that the system can be
quickly installed in a standard airliner.

The advantage is that this system could take over the flight path of
the airliner --directing the original plane, passengers and onboard
hijackers onto the target with pinpoint accuracy. Unlike a human
pilot, the system won't chicken out or miss the target.

This is just a quick overview of the issue, it needs a topic of it's own.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 41, 42, 43 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 42 of 48

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.