FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
CGI / Hologram / No Planes
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 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
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7871

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:18 pm    Post subject: CGI / Hologram / No Planes Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with general evidence about the issue of the planes
at the World Trade Center being CGI inserts or Holograms and/or
no planes at all.


-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic.


Last edited by Fintan on Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:25 am    Post subject: ! Reply with quote

You know - I'd just like to punt this out there:

How do we all feel about the possibility that the 'planes *were* CGI'd somehow onto the video feeds, that day?

I'm *not* talking holograms, here (of course), but rather something along the lines of Nico Haupt's theories.

You've gotta admit, that 'plane looks *fucking well weird* the way it 'melts' into the side of the WTC. Now, I know that the plane's mainly aluminium, and the tower was steel etc etc. But, even so, you just wouln't expect it to *look* like that.

Admittedly, no-one *has* seen anything like that happen before, so what's to compare?

But still, watching that loop of the 'plane *melting* into the tower just look *so* wrong to me. Am I just going quietly insane, here, turning into one of those Reptoid's Holograms Did It People? Someone, help, please.....
Confused

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First off, it's a fascinating, but non-integral point. We accept the fact that the planes were a diversion from the mechanics of the collapse.

Even if the planes were a diversion in disguise, their function in the operation is clear.

I don't see any real conclusion possible to the argument, because we can never be sure about the custody chain of the media materials, the 'eyewitness' issue seems to be spin-able either way, and we simply weren't there.

Obviously somebody engineered the physical events of the day, and obviously there were media teams in place to manage public perceptions of those physical events.

I call them the OP team and the PSYOP team.

When weighing possibilities, I try to look at the logistical benefit or detriment to either team. My logic is that the OP team isn't going to attempt something that is so obvious that the PSYOP team can't cover up, and PSYOPS can't require an element that will compromise the op.

So, planes or no planes? I try to have that conversation between the OP dept. and the PSYOP dept. in my head. (Usually the OPs guy rolls his eyes and hangs up, but...)

From the perspective of either dude, ask yourself these questions:

What advantage would real planes present?
What disadvantage would real planes present?

What advantage would no planes present?
What disadvantage would no planes present?

That usually presents a relatively common sense direction for inquiry.

My current thoughts?

The OPs guys are pretty good with their GPS and laser guided navigation systems, have control over the actual airspace, NORAD stuff and high tech radar shit that is pretty reliable about flying things hitting their targets.

Why'd they 'hijack' four planes if they were only gonna CGI two of em?

The media materials could have just as easily have been tampered with to INSERT anomalies to support the PSYOP team's assertion that there were no planes.

Hmm. That way, everybody wins. OPs don't have to worry about a CGI screw up that shows Daffy Duck flying into the towers, and PSYOPS have plenty of 'evidence' to eventually shoot their own feet completely off.

Good question, though. I've been wondering the same thing.

Sharing parallel lines of thought with me does not necessarily bode well for your mental condition, however. Wink

... and I'm not letting the holographic reptoids completely off the hook yet...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:54 am    Post subject: Re: ! Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
You've gotta admit, that 'plane looks *fucking well weird* the way it 'melts' into the side of the WTC. Now, I know that the plane's mainly aluminium, and the tower was steel etc etc. But, even so, you just wouln't expect it to *look* like that.

Admittedly, no-one *has* seen anything like that happen before, so what's to compare?

Idea


Hurricane winds drive a 10-foot 2X4 through a palm tree in this September 13, 1928, photo. (Photo Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Dept. of Commerce)

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-006/htm/palm.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:49 am    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

Jerry said:

Quote:
So, planes or no planes? I try to have that conversation between the OP dept. and the PSYOP dept. in my head. (Usually the OPs guy rolls his eyes and hangs up, but...)


LOL - Oh yeah, the eye-rolling and the hanging up. Smile

Seriously, thought - maybe there were planes AND CGI feed - 'planes because, like you say - they're good at that kind of thing, and CGI coz they wanted to make it look just right for their purposes. Maybe to hide some aspect of the op that wasn't supposed to be seen.

Stallion4 quoted:

Quote:
Hurricane winds drive a 10-foot 2X4 through a palm tree in this September 13, 1928, photo. (Photo Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Dept. of Commerce)

Yeah, freaky - I've seen that before, and fascinating though it is, it doesn't tell us much about the aspects of a jet-liner plunging into a unique steel-framed structure, does it? Unless I'm being spectacularly dense, somehow. Wink

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku


Last edited by Continuity on Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi C,

Quote:
But still, watching that loop of the 'plane *melting* into the tower just look *so* wrong to me. Am I just going quietly insane, here, turning into one of those Reptoid's Holograms Did It People? Someone, help, please.....


Check this out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpRGLrkIsw
This plane is hitting a SOLID REINFORCED CONCRETE wall (so we are told), I would suppose that most of the debris that is flying out is pulverized concrete, not bits of plane.

A number of points are brought up by this...

According to the audio, this test was done by the US gov, so I would ask if there is full disclosure with what the parameters of this test are.
Is this an unmodified jet? i.e. is there anything inside the jet?
Is the jet packed with anything? Was it full of concrete? Iron rods etc?
Why can't we see what the damage to the concrete is after the dust settles?
The one think that is clear, is that the wingtips are sheered-off, and visibly continue along the path (conservation of momentum).
However, I don't think that this proves that planes "vapourize" as the audio states.

Personally, I have no doubt that aircraft hit the towers. The questions is were they the planes they say they were. I am leaning towards yes, as it would have been simpler to accomplish. Having the original flights land and then have "fixed" jets take-off sounds much too complicated for my tastes. I think with the level of planning these guys engineered, the KISS rule would have been enforced in all areas.

Quote:
The OPs guys are pretty good with their GPS and laser guided navigation systems, have control over the actual airspace, NORAD stuff and high tech radar shit that is pretty reliable about flying things hitting their targets.

Jerry Fletcher says it best...
Why'd they 'hijack' four planes if they were only gonna CGI two of em?
Exactly... because I think that would have made things too complicated... CGI is just another idea put out by people who want to lump all of us into the 'tinfoil' hat crowd. Probably the same ones that talk of holograms and ufo's doing it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:25 pm    Post subject: Ah yes... Reply with quote

Hi elbowdeep.

Ah yes - the famous F4 crashing into a concrete wall clip. Intense stuff.

As for the plane being 'vapourised' - I, too think that's a load of hooey. I bet that if you examined the scene after everything had settled, you would find many, many small shreds of metal, and maybe a few bigger lumps from the larger, denser components, like the landing struts, and the ballast weights etc.

And, don't forget, what we're seeing there is a lightweight (relatively) warplane flying into a concrete wall that was designed to protect nuclear facilities. I would imagine that is a completely different proposition than crashing a jumbo jet into the WTC towers, which were far from being solid, hyper-reinforced concrete barriers. Still, it's all good info to chew on.
Quote:

Jerry Fletcher says it best...
Why'd they 'hijack' four planes if they were only gonna CGI two of em?

Maybe because all eyes were on the WTC crashes, especially the 2nd one, but the Pentagon and Shanksville 'crashes' did'n't have to cater to any real-time witnesses. Plus, the only video feeds happening were of the WTC - no-one got any video footage of the Pentagon or Shanksville 'crashes'.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Seriously, thought - maybe there were planes AND CGI feed - 'planes because, like you say - they're good at that kind of thing, and CGI coz they wanted to make it look just right for their purposes. Maybe to hide some aspect of the op that wasn't supposed to be seen.


Or insert some aspects that are supposed to be seen to divert attention away from the fact that the events themselves are unexplainable.

Tin foilers get a 'Tom and Jerry' crash video to pore over, without the operational dangers of cartoon planes.

I'm not suggesting the footage wasn't CGI'd - I'm just saying this is what these people do for a living. If we are 'thinking about it', rest assured the psyops boys have already thought about it, and have already thought long and hard about exactly how they want us to think about it.

Ultimately, they want to shock, jar, traumatize, and trick us into dismissing the 'truth' as 'conspiracy', and well, ultimately, conspiracy as conspiracy.

Media is not real, real life, or objective in any way. If experiencing media evokes an emotional reaction in you, TAKE NOTE!!! Especially fear, anger, or hopelessness.

THAT is the reason the media wriggled it's way into your attention - not the information, but to condition an emotional response relating to the information.

If they pre-rigged the towers, why wouldn't they pre-wire the 'conspiracy' angle?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If CGI was involved, I would have to go for CGI and planes too...

This sure is a plane part... (from flight 175)



From: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm#2.2.1.3

Regarding the planes "melting" into the structure...
Check out David Hawkins' ideas that involve planes' fuselages being modified (on the inside) with a rubber-like solid rocket fuel, that when triggered would turn most of the plane into a plasma (reaching about 5000 degres F. Plausible? He also claims that a substance like this might have been "sprayed" on the walls of the all the elevator shafts in WTC 1 & 2. This may account for the explosiveness and the sudden collapse (no movement in the towers [no weakening] ---> global, explosive collapse).

As for "credible" CGI/ effects in movies pre-9/11 Industrial Light & Magic's work on 'Forest Gump' ('94) springs to mind.



WTC & effects: Has anyone seen this (fake/ CGI) video of a UFO around the WTC? It looks pretty real...





Quicktime video: http://www.ufocasebook.com/wtcvideo.mov

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
FaxMam



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arrow

Last edited by FaxMam on Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we can pretty well all agree that the center of the tower has the worlds most MASSIVE COLUMNS ever used in construction. YES?

For an airplane travelling at 500mph to impact the first layer of this matrix of vertical columns and be basically shredded, as its pieces travelled through each subsequent 'layer' taking away energy, is not farfetched, as I believe this is exactly what happened, inflicting some damage to those vertical columns.

Why would they have to use CGI? What added effects would this provide? Would the payback justify the risks involved? I think not.

Simple, you fly the planes into the buildings, you make sure there is more than one, and staggered, so that all cameras are pointing on the aftermath of the first 'crash', and are there to capture the second crash from a myriad of different viewpoints... so you have many many angles to capture the action when the second one comes in, and you have as many angles as you want to replay ad-nauseum to keep your sheep in the pen. Stage #2 of your psyop is complete. (The demolition is stage #3, another topic) (Stage #1, was the obvious chatter in the news, (pump-up) of "terrorism", and the usage of the words "Osam Bin-Laden", BEFORE any plane, hit any building).

Again, if CGI was used, what proof is there? Just cause it was filmed by WESCAM? Thats it?
What advantage would it have given the perpetrators?

Like I've said before, I think this CGI thing is another assgasm from the fakes for the gullable to chew and pass on, eventually infecting their 'contacts' with bad info. Much like you kill ants... give one of them a nice piece of delicious poison to take back to infect the colony, and it's game over.

I've reviewed Nico Haupts stuff, IMO he's grasping at straws. But hey, I'm no video expert, and neither is he.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

elbowdeep said:
Quote:
Like I've said before, I think this CGI thing is another assgasm from the fakes for the gullable...

Seeing the lengths that it's been/being taken to out there, I must say that I agree with you, there.

The *only* time that the thought of CGI *anything* rose in my mind (and even then, briefly) , is when I looked at the close-up footage of the 'plane 'melting' into the tower - that's it. It just looks so *wrong*, I guess it's a way of trying to explain why.

Now, I realise that no-one's really had the benefit of seeing a variety of passenger jets plowing into exotic superstructures before, so it's a little hard to compare. There's not much of a baseline, to compare and contrast with. Wink

But, you gotta admit, that crash just looks *wrong* - you look at those rare pix that there are of things smashing into 'planes, and you see wings nearly ripped off from collisions with birds with some smaller 'planes.

Pretty much anytime you see a jet's wing hit something solid, the wing comes off, everytime. Seeing wings slicing through buildings seems *fucking well weird*.

Quote:
A fixed wing leading edge is very vulnerable to even slight impact at high speed, e.g. structural damage done by birds. Aircraft wings are not stressed to take full frontal impact but are well stressed for vertical movement as encountered in turbulence. The wing damage tolerance for a large passenger aircraft is such that it can withstand, at cruise speed, the impact of a 4 lb bird(!) as defined by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs): FAR 25.571(e).

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 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 1, 2, 3 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 1 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.