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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
September Clues - Part 8

Quest
post Sep 12 2007, 10:33 AM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservi...lues-part8.aspx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 12 2007, 04:17 PM
Post #2





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



Video claims that it's difficult to photograph a fast moving object clearly and that it took years to achieve clear shots. This statement calls into question a NYPD officer's son's credibility who photographed the second plane hitting the south tower. The video claims the son got "lucky" with his clear photograph.

How about getting a digital camera which is already made for taking clear pictures of fast moving objects. Most digital cameras do not blur when taking pictures of fast moving ojects. With digital cameras, either everything is blurred (which means it's out of focus) or everything is clear. That's why you can take a picture with a digital camera of a prop plane's propeller or a helicopter's propeller while they are in rotation and the picture looks like the propellers are stopped. Seems the person who made this video isn't very knowledgable on different types of cameras and how they work. Or different camera angles for that matter.

Video continues to name off several other people who got "lucky" with their clear shots, calling into question their credibility as well.

The rest of the video spews the same garbage we've been dealing with here at PFT about camera angles. Socialservice should go knowledge himself with camera angles and different camera types and how they work before he puts out video #9.

As usual, all the videos are fake, the photos are fake, the people who shot the photos are having their credibility attacked. Same old same old.... nonono.gif thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Sep 12 2007, 04:37 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



The problem with this stuff is that it's seductive. And too much inuendo in these vids IMO. I wish simonshack/socialservices would just say what he obviously is intending to say, clearly, and back it up - or not say it. The "inuendo" approach really bothers me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 12 2007, 04:46 PM
Post #4


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Quest, I really wish you wouldn't post bsreg/socialservice/fred/ videos on this site. They are worse than not credible -- they are insults and disinformation besides. Why should we allow our forum be one more link to this crap?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 12 2007, 05:09 PM
Post #5





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Sanders @ Sep 12 2007, 04:37 PM)
I wish simonshack/socialservices would just say what he obviously is intending to say, clearly, and back it up

And that's one of the problems. He can't back anything he says up. He just throws around assumptions and wishful thinking, and then calls it all "proof" and "conclusive".

cleanup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 12 2007, 05:13 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



pukeface.gif

sorry....tried to hold it in...

oh wait...

pukeface.gif

there it goes again...

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Sep 12 2007, 05:19 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Sep 13 2007, 06:09 AM)
QUOTE (Sanders @ Sep 12 2007, 04:37 PM)
I wish simonshack/socialservices would just say what he obviously is intending to say, clearly, and back it up

And that's one of the problems. He can't back anything he says up. He just throws around assumptions and wishful thinking, and then calls it all "proof" and "conclusive".

cleanup.gif

In all honesty, I think it's mixed. There's some good research in the various September Clues installments IMO. Some of it is garbage.

This series has both educated me and made me want to bang my head against the wall.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Sep 12 2007, 05:28 PM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Guys, don't get me wrong. When I posted this video, by know means does it mean I endorse it, swear by it or anything else. Take it apart, point by point. But at the same time, if the video makes any points that are worth discussing, do that as well; don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree Sanders, the video maker makes the critical mistake of preaching the the choir. I am much more well read than many on the topics he brings up but for someone only looking into this stuff occasionally, they have no idea whatsoever of where the hell he is going and why.

I'd like to bring up a few points when I get home.

Later, gentlemen. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Quest: Sep 12 2007, 05:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Sep 12 2007, 05:38 PM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (painter @ Sep 12 2007, 08:46 PM)
Quest, I really wish you wouldn't post bsreg/socialservice/fred/ videos on this site. They are worse than not credible -- they are insults and disinformation besides. Why should we allow our forum be one more link to this crap?

Painter,

Socialservice is not fred/bsreg for starters. I do however agree he Socialservice needs someone to collaborate with to "proof" his videos so that he presents his points in a more precise manner. Still, that is window dressing and I'm not going to dismiss the material because he doesn't present it the way I would want to see it; I am quite capable of understanding his material and I don't really care how it's packaged by him or anyone else, that would also include any 911 related material. But as I suggested earlier, he needs to collaborate with someone who is better at presenting info while he (Socialservice) does the research.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Sep 12 2007, 05:42 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 12 2007, 09:13 PM)
pukeface.gif

sorry....tried to hold it in...

oh wait...

pukeface.gif

there it goes again...

wink.gif

Now Rob, let's be objective and fair. I perceive a double standard.

Aren't you the one that went around proclaiming the CNN/Herzekhani/Talor videos as authentic and hoax/tamper free with absolutely no scientific analysis? If you have a specific point to make on the DATA in the video, make it.

This post has been edited by Quest: Sep 12 2007, 05:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 12 2007, 05:52 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Quest @ Sep 12 2007, 05:42 PM)
Aren't you the one that went around proclaiming the CNN/Herzekhani/Talor videos as authentic and hoax/tamper free with absolutely no scientific analysis? .

huh.. who? what?


provide link please because i do not remember anything of the sort nor do i have a clue what you are talking about. Please remind me... source appreciated.

baseless claim not appreciated without source link. You know better TQ.


QUOTE
If you have a specific point to make on the DATA in the video, make it.


I believe i did. But if you cannot follow the pretty pictures, i'll spell it out.

It makes me puke. smile.gif

Are we clear?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 12 2007, 06:29 PM
Post #12





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Quest @ Sep 12 2007, 05:42 PM)
Aren't you the one that went around proclaiming the CNN/Herzekhani/Talor videos as authentic and hoax/tamper free with absolutely no scientific analysis?

I don't know why i have to keep saying this over and over and OVER.....

We do not have to prove that a video or photo is scientifically authentic because we are not making the claims. YOU are making the claim that it's not authentic so you show us some scientific evidence to support your claim. I don't know why you can't get this through your head.

You make the claim, you back it up with proof. Not only is that the way it is here, but it's that way in real science. So either back up your claims with real undebunkable, conclusive scientific proof, or stop posting about it. We are not going to rehash the same thing over and over here anymore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Sep 12 2007, 08:33 PM
Post #13





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Hey Rob,

You in fact in another thread mentioned that the CNN videos could offer evidence regarding plane speed or type of plane (may be an "altered or modified plane" I believe you said) may have hit the tower and I mentioned that it was a circular argument to use the video as proof of the type of plane when no scientific study with expert analysis has been done on the plane.

I apologize for the harshness of my post; didn't quite mean it like it may have sounded in the typed word. No harm meant. I meant to say that ANYONE that claims the 2nd tower videos/photos as authentic, tamper free and hoax-free has no scientific leg to stand on. That is all my friend. wink.gif

BoneZ, some of the photos and videos do show obvious signs of tampering and fakery including pixel bleed-through between the plane and tower and contradictory flight paths among other anomalies. If you don't think that's evidence of fakery I can live with it, but it's proof enough for me to at least strongly consider that TV fakery was involved and that the tower strikes may be NBPH (No Big Pane Hit) events similar to what most say transpired at Shansville and the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 12 2007, 08:46 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Quest @ Sep 12 2007, 08:33 PM)
Hey Rob,

You in fact in another thread mentioned that the CNN videos could offer evidence regarding plane speed or type of plane (may be an "altered or modified plane" I believe you said) may have hit the tower and I mentioned that it was a circular argument to use the video as proof of the type of plane when no scientific study with expert analysis has been done on the plane.

I vaguely remember that. However, "scientific study" has been done on the subject with Check Airman (google it) and those with a background to understand what it is they are talking about. I am one of them..

QUOTE
I apologize for the harshness of my post; didn't quite mean it like it may have sounded in the typed word. No harm meant. I meant to say that ANYONE that claims the 2nd tower videos/photos as authentic, tamper free and hoax-free has no scientific leg to stand on. That is all my friend.  wink.gif


Apology accepted.

You're more than welcome to expend all your energy on TV Fakery/Hoaxes or otherwise. -- Let me know when you bring professionals with a solid resume into the fold of the truth movement with your argument.


QUOTE
BoneZ, some of the photos and videos do show obvious signs of tampering and fakery including pixel bleed-through between the plane and tower and contradictory flight paths among other anomalies. If you don't think that's evidence of fakery I can live with it, but it's proof enough for me to at least strongly consider that TV fakery was involved and that the tower strikes may be NBPH (No Big Pane Hit) events similar to what most say transpired at Shansville and the Pentagon.


Not directed towards me so allow me if i yawn.gif

regards...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 12 2007, 08:55 PM
Post #15





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Quest @ Sep 12 2007, 08:33 PM)
BoneZ, some of the photos and videos do show obvious signs of tampering and fakery

Only obvious to you and a few others. Most of the rest of us can see there's nothing there. Same thing with the "pod" theory. Most people see through the "pod" hoax as well. If you make people see a pod on the bottom of FL.175, then they will see one. I saw one before i did some research and found that there wasn't one and it was just light and shadows highlighting a wing fairing. Had i not done research to verify a pod, i would still believe there's a pod. You guys make people see things that aren't really there. And you guys do it in a way that's misleading and deceptive and sometimes just outright lying.

If there were really a pod there, i would believe in a pod. If there were really tv fakery or even the slightest hint that there might be evidence of it at the WTC, then i'd tend to believe it. But you guys still have not posted anything even remotely credible or interesting enough to make me go "hmm".

All i'm seeing with all the "alt theories" is people who don't understand about camera angles, how different cameras operate or work. Or even an understanding of video compression, artifacts and such. And different lighting and shadow situations that can make you see things that aren't really there.

Still waiting for that thread months later that shows all the hardcore evidence of tv fakery..... whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shug7272
post Sep 12 2007, 09:39 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 89
Joined: 18-August 07
Member No.: 1,750



Ok so what is the deal with the choppers... is there something I am missing. That seems odd. Please someone point out where I am missing something.. That just doesnt look right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Sep 13 2007, 08:53 AM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 13 2007, 12:46 AM)
I vaguely remember that. However, "scientific study" has been done on the subject with Check Airman (google it) and those with a background to understand what it is they are talking about. I am one of them..

Thanks Rob, I'll check it out. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Sep 13 2007, 09:06 AM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Sep 13 2007, 12:55 AM)
All i'm seeing with all the "alt theories" is people who don't understand about camera angles, how different cameras operate or work. Or even an understanding of video compression, artifacts and such. And different lighting and shadow situations that can make you see things that aren't really there.

What do camera angles have to do with my claim that the plane's "melting" into the tower instead of crumpling against it looks totally fake? That is the main thrust of my argument. This is what casts doubt in the mind of many and inspired them to research the authenticity and veracity of the videos, not to mention the fact the post 911, Michael Hezerkhani has become a diamond merchant and the owner of 2 businesses and Carmen Taylor has also experienced some good fortune. But nahhhh, it's all just a COINCIDENCE.

Because I and many others, including Jeff King, Morgan Reynolds and Jim Fetzer do not believe an oversized aluminum beer keg with wings can fully penetrate a tower without raining parts to the sidewalk below the or leaving no trace of plane parts in the gash.

Still unexplained is that an aluminum plane will break up in the air if it's flight parameters are exceeded (banking angles or speed) but on 911 won't crumple against a building with a steel outer frame and concrete floors.

Only in Hollywood. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Quest: Sep 13 2007, 01:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 13 2007, 04:13 PM
Post #19





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (shug7272 @ Sep 12 2007, 09:39 PM)
Ok so what is the deal with the choppers... is there something I am missing. That seems odd. Please someone point out where I am missing something.. That just doesnt look right.

All it has to do with is the video maker's lack of understanding of camera angles/distances, etc. The video clips were poorly timed and the clips were all at different angles, heights, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 13 2007, 04:23 PM
Post #20





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE ("Quest")
This is what casts doubt in the mind of many and inspired them to research the authenticity and veracity of the videos

I think you meant "casts doubt in the mind of a few". Many don't believe in the disinfo/garbage that is tv fakery/no planes.

QUOTE
Still unexplained is that an aluminum plane will break up in the air if it's flight parameters are exceeded (banking angles or speed) but on 911 won't crumple against a building with a steel outer frame and concrete floors.

Only in Hollywood.

Nah, only in the minds of a select few that haven't considered all the facts, or may not have a clear comprehension of science and physics. Instead of considering the "flash" as being explosives inside the plane to allow the planes to enter the buildings more fully and completely, which is a more logical conclusion, you guys would rather just say everything was faked, i.e. taking the easy way out.

There you have it! Everything and every witness are all fakes. No need in doing anymore research. We can all go home now!!!! nonono.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 21st October 2019 - 01:16 AM