IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11 Amateurs Were Using Tripods, Video Proof of Tripod or Dolly use by Herzarkhani

yankee451
post Apr 12 2017, 12:33 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



Anyone who has ever toyed around with video editing knows how much fun it can be to use a tripod. With footage captured by a camera on a tripod and with commonly used layering techniques a photographer can make things appear and disappear from the video. All of the 9/11 footage I have seen show evidence of tripod use, and in this case Iíll use the Herzarkhani footage as an example. This footage was allegedly captured from the deck of a tour-boat but there are fifteen frames that prove without a doubt this guy was a pro with a tripod or dolly on dry land pretending to be an amateur on a boat.

Because there wasnít a real jet for him to focus on for or this shot to work the camera operator had to practice the camera movement from a predetermined location and on a stable platform because to insert a 3D image of a jet into 2D footage is infinitely less complicated if the footage is captured from a stable platform like a tripod, and sure enough Herzarkhani had one.

https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=2Gpr-jtWCNc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MarcusT
post Apr 12 2017, 06:35 AM
Post #2





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 18-January 07
Member No.: 467



Have you actually watched any/all the PilotsFor911Truth videos/documentaries?

You're wasting your time, and you're wasting ours - almost nobody (and especially not here) seriously believes that the footage of the planes New York was manipulated, there's no compelling evidence that they did and it's completely unneccessary to achieve what happened that day so why further complicate an already complicated plan?

Plus, there IS compelling evidence that there were plane swaps in mid-flight, and two objects which looked like aircraft definitely did hit the buildings, though exactly what they were and what they may or may not have been equipped with remains somewhat mysterious & speculative.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Apr 12 2017, 07:54 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (MarcusT @ Apr 12 2017, 03:35 AM) *
Have you actually watched any/all the PilotsFor911Truth videos/documentaries?

You're wasting your time, and you're wasting ours - almost nobody (and especially not here) seriously believes that the footage of the planes New York was manipulated, there's no compelling evidence that they did and it's completely unneccessary to achieve what happened that day so why further complicate an already complicated plan?

Plus, there IS compelling evidence that there were plane swaps in mid-flight, and two objects which looked like aircraft definitely did hit the buildings, though exactly what they were and what they may or may not have been equipped with remains somewhat mysterious & speculative.



Actually three are fifteen frames that prove you're in a trance and wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you between the eyes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Apr 12 2017, 12:53 PM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 663
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Apr 12 2017, 07:54 AM) *
Actually three are fifteen frames that prove you're in a trance and wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you between the eyes.


Are they the same fifteen frames where you 'proved' that the smoke stopped moving? LOL!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Apr 12 2017, 01:13 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Apr 12 2017, 09:53 AM) *
Are they the same fifteen frames where you 'proved' that the smoke stopped moving? LOL!


No, and for the record the smoke I was referring to was just as the jet was penetrating the building, but the footage is too blurry at that point to demonstrate it one way or the other so I am retracting that statement.

The fifteen frames I mention are clearly marked and frames 13-15 show no movement at all. To have even two motionless frames is proof enough that this guy was not using a handheld camera on a boat but was in fact using a tripod on solid ground. Do you still believe the video is legit? If so, why?

This post has been edited by yankee451: Apr 12 2017, 01:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Apr 12 2017, 04:08 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Apr 12 2017, 10:13 AM) *
No, and for the record the smoke I was referring to was just as the jet was penetrating the building, but the footage is too blurry at that point to demonstrate it one way or the other so I am retracting that statement.

The fifteen frames I mention are clearly marked and frames 13-15 show no movement at all. To have even two motionless frames is proof enough that this guy was not using a handheld camera on a boat but was in fact using a tripod on solid ground. Do you still believe the video is legit? If so, why?


The 15 frames are available to peruse on this link. Like the smoke I will withdraw this claim if I'm wrong, but if I'm not wrong what does that say for the veracity of the Herzarkhani footage? Do these frames not prove he was not using a handheld camera on a boat?

http://yankee451.com/?p=3887
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Apr 12 2017, 06:11 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 663
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Apr 12 2017, 04:08 PM) *
The 15 frames are available to peruse on this link. Like the smoke I will withdraw this claim if I'm wrong, but if I'm not wrong what does that say for the veracity of the Herzarkhani footage? Do these frames not prove he was not using a handheld camera on a boat?

http://yankee451.com/?p=3887


Sorry Steve I am not following you.

First of all I don't see the camera being still at any time in the video you link to.
Could you be precise as to the time on the video that this occurs?

Secondly if it is actually still for 15 frames and he is shooting at 30 fps
then it is still for 1/2 a second.

Do you think it is not possible to steady a hand-held camera for 1/2 second?




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Apr 12 2017, 11:03 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Apr 12 2017, 03:11 PM) *
Sorry Steve I am not following you.

First of all I don't see the camera being still at any time in the video you link to.
Could you be precise as to the time on the video that this occurs?

Secondly if it is actually still for 15 frames and he is shooting at 30 fps
then it is still for 1/2 a second.

Do you think it is not possible to steady a hand-held camera for 1/2 second?


Sure you are.

Each and every frame should be different with a handheld camera, that's why tripods are used. But three frames show absolutely no movement at all and 12 others show barely a wobble. Pretty impressive camera work for an amateur with a handheld camera on a tour boat. A half second is a long time in such a case but even two frames without moving are proof of tripod use.

The link I provided was to the fifteen frames we're discussing as well as the footage which shows them at the one minute mark.

http://yankee451.com/?p=3887

This post has been edited by yankee451: Apr 12 2017, 11:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Apr 13 2017, 11:26 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 663
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Apr 12 2017, 11:03 PM) *
Sure you are.

Each and every frame should be different with a handheld camera, that's why tripods are used. But three frames show absolutely no movement at all and 12 others show barely a wobble. Pretty impressive camera work for an amateur with a handheld camera on a tour boat. A half second is a long time in such a case but even two frames without moving are proof of tripod use.

The link I provided was to the fifteen frames we're discussing as well as the footage which shows them at the one minute mark.

http://yankee451.com/?p=3887



You have mentioned the one minute mark, but that slice of frames is taken out of sequence of the footage.
For example, before you show the 15 frames, I see the explosion, which must have occurred after the 15 frames.

So where in the complete sequence of Hazark footage do the 15 frames occur?
If you could point me to a precise time mark on any Hazark video?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 15 2017, 01:04 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,154
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It's way above my skill level.

But I'm with MarcusT, two aircraft of some type hit both of the towers, and for the south tower it was a modified Boeing.

There were many people taking pictures with many different cameras. Not all cameras are subject to the same manipulations. Something actually did happen, for many more people saw the planes but did not take a photograph. Though the buildings were prepared for the impact points, weakened with nuts or bolts removed from the structure, explosives planted. But they hit close in each case, and it worked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Apr 16 2017, 08:16 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 15 2017, 10:04 AM) *
It's way above my skill level.

But I'm with MarcusT, two aircraft of some type hit both of the towers, and for the south tower it was a modified Boeing.

There were many people taking pictures with many different cameras. Not all cameras are subject to the same manipulations. Something actually did happen, for many more people saw the planes but did not take a photograph. Though the buildings were prepared for the impact points, weakened with nuts or bolts removed from the structure, explosives planted. But they hit close in each case, and it worked.


Evidence be damned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Apr 18 2017, 06:57 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 137
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 15 2017, 01:04 PM) *
It's way above my skill level.

But I'm with MarcusT, two aircraft of some type hit both of the towers, and for the south tower it was a modified Boeing.

There were many people taking pictures with many different cameras. Not all cameras are subject to the same manipulations. Something actually did happen, for many more people saw the planes but did not take a photograph. Though the buildings were prepared for the impact points, weakened with nuts or bolts removed from the structure, explosives planted. But they hit close in each case, and it worked.

IF what you say, "they hit close" (to the points where the frame was weakened or bolts were loosened) is TRUE, then you are saying they (the planes) were projectiles and they HIT THEIR TARGETS! That would mean almost ASSUREDLY, that they were LAZER-GUIDED because they were too damn big to be flown freelance. This has been my contention for a long time, that these aircraft were lazer-guided and NO PEOPLE were on board.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Apr 18 2017, 07:00 PM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 137
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (excontroller @ Apr 18 2017, 06:57 PM) *
IF what you say, "they hit close" (to the points where the frame was weakened or bolts were loosened) is TRUE, then you are saying they (the planes) were projectiles and they HIT THEIR TARGETS! That would mean almost ASSUREDLY, that they were LAZER-GUIDED because they were too damn big to be flown freelance. This has been my contention for a long time, that these aircraft were lazer-guided and NO PEOPLE were on board.



I further believe this is the greatest reason Building 7 was destroyed. I have always thought building 7 contained the machinery necessary to make SURE this did not fail. I mean the technical apparatus was there and had to be destroyed. I wish there could've been intervention in the rubble, by a group of interested people without ties. Much evidence was lost. All of it, really.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 19 2017, 09:37 AM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,154
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (excontroller @ Apr 18 2017, 07:57 PM) *
IF what you say, "they hit close" (to the points where the frame was weakened or bolts were loosened) is TRUE, then you are saying they (the planes) were projectiles and they HIT THEIR TARGETS! That would mean almost ASSUREDLY, that they were LAZER-GUIDED because they were too damn big to be flown freelance. This has been my contention for a long time, that these aircraft were lazer-guided and NO PEOPLE were on board.


I very much agree, two drones. One smaller, the second one for the cameras a modified 767

I also agree on the purpose of destroying WTC7. There may have been, and probably were other reasons such as Enron records, but getting rid of the evidence in Rudi's bunker was a big reason.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Apr 19 2017, 04:25 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 663
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 19 2017, 09:37 AM) *
I very much agree, two drones. One smaller, the second one for the cameras a modified 767

I also agree on the purpose of destroying WTC7. There may have been, and probably were other reasons such as Enron records, but getting rid of the evidence in Rudi's bunker was a big reason.


That's funny I agree with you two guys as well. smile.gif
It took years of research to come to this conclusion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th July 2017 - 01:34 PM