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 )

12 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
John Lear A No Planer?

George Hayduke
post May 14 2008, 09:34 AM
Post #101


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



It's possible that both Lear and McConnell were right. In one instance they used a drone, in another, um, something else. If I were setting up the operation, I'd use strictly one modus operandi, for simplicity's sake. But I didn't set up the operation. Anywho, war games are an opportunity to try out new technology, so perhaps multiple sorts or types of technology were indeed tested.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 14 2008, 06:01 PM
Post #102





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Lawson

Thank you for the information. It is interesting that between all the agencies there is a spread of about 90 mph in guesstimates.

I've never flown a Boeing, but I've flown a few small airplanes over Vne. Obviously in a steep dive.

Depending on weights and so forth, I see no reason why the same could not be done with the Boeing.

As dMole and others have mentioned here, perhaps the engines are more restricting to high airspeed than the fuselage. I don't know. Out of a dive, I think it could be done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 14 2008, 08:49 PM
Post #103





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



George,
I'm glad it wasn't you, but I agree with your reasoning.

amazed!,
It looks as though the same video material was not used for each estimate. There is only an 11 mph difference in the two aviation-related organization's estimates, the FAA and RAE (Farnborough), which makes me lean towards those. FEEMA may have been erring on the high side, because of their stance on how the buildings were brought down, but NIST was obviously not playing that game. Why the MIT's estimate is so radically different is anyone's guess.

Thank you for your responses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 14 2008, 11:03 PM
Post #104



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (lawson911 @ May 14 2008, 04:29 AM) *
I don’t think I am asking you to speculate, .... there must be enough seat-of-the-pants information floating about for someone to make an intelligent guess....


contradict much?


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 13 2008, 11:30 AM) *
If you want us to say "Its Possible" or "Not possible", help us get the wind tunnel data and/or Critical Mach numbers at or near sea level for a 767. You asked how you can help lift some burden? This is how. Please be sure to provide solid source, names, etc.

It would also be helpful if you can get a "Vg" diagram for the 767. It looks like this... of course, this isnt for a 767.



I'll add by saying also get us the wind tunnel data for the "possibly modified" 767 you feel impacted the south tower and the mods involved. Or do you want us to speculate on those issues based on stock 767 data (when and if we are able to obtain it...)

I like you Anthony, but i feel this is a case of trying to fit a scenario to an already established theory. Just my opinion of course. Doesnt mean i disagree with you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Bursill
post May 15 2008, 02:12 AM
Post #105





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 3
Joined: 15-May 08
Member No.: 3,340



G'day all and I am sorry I have not joined earlier but really I have accomplished more for 9/11 Truth by not being here, as I would have been occupied by this site, it is very interesting!

I recently sent this e-mail out to our Australian Group in response to the video I recieved, a John Lear interview.

I am not here for a "flame war" but I thought I should give you my "quick" thoughts on the "No Plane at the WTC" and of John Lear's dangerous interview!

Many of you are expert in flying a 767 and may have conducted a dive in the sim and can tell me how hard it is to achieve speeds around 450knots at near sea level.

Here is the e-mail please tear it apart if you think I am unfair or in error!

********************************************************************

To all in the pursuit of 9/11 Truth,

Recently I received the video below, an interview with pilot John Lear. In this video John Lear makes many erroneous claims mixed with some accurate ones. He is a man of note but has also worked for the CIA and is a UFO(ET) advocate. On the surface his claims appear valid to the novice but on closer examination their are many false conclusions and assumptions. Please watch this carefully then read my and others critiques.

I have only decided to debunk this video as I know of atleast three "good and well meaning" activists that have been left "wondering" after watching this video and we must not let this "No Plane" hogwash(Bob Bowman) get a hold of our movement. Whether it was the actual official flights that hit the towers, who knows.........but there were planes, I am certain of that!

John Lear "No Plane at the WTC" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

It may be worth noting a am Licensed on the Boeing 767/200 In Avionic Maintenance and are fully conversant with the Autoflight and Navigation Systems of these aircraft. I have been working on them for over 20 years. This is a quick analysis and more work needs to be done in time.

Break down of this piece of dissinfo put forward by John Lear, what he says and what is real...

1. Lear says "Flight 11 and 77 didn't exist" Well? Who knows(it's secret, like many things) and what relevance does it have to the "No Plane" at the WTC, none. Just because a flight number didn't exist (if that is true) this flight number changes with every trip the plane makes but THE PLANE STILL EXISTS regardless of it's assigned number. Some times a flight can have more than one number as it may be shared between to companies, who knows?

2. Lear says "Flight 93 had no wreckage" there at the official site, yes this is mostly true and gets you thinking that the "No Plane" at the WTC idea has validity. Wrong.

3.He now goes on to talk about a simulation session "he was going" to set up for 6 pilots in Miami and goes into the concept of putting them 20 miles out at 7,000 ft altitude and at 560mph(486Knots/h) and letting them fly into the WTC buildings manually. Ok well firstly he has not done this but he has you thinking he has by the end of the explanation. Note: NIST estimates the velocity of the South Tower impact at 500-590mph and I would consider this estimate as "high as possible" for they needed as much speed as possible to get enough damage to allow the collapse to ensue of the towers. So lets say we agree that the plane was doing 500mph(their minimum) which equates to 434Knots(still very fast) at approximate sea level.

4.Now he states that the maximum operating speed of the 767/200 is 360mph. WRONG it is 365Knots/h which is 420mph considerably more and not so far away from the 500mph observed by NIST. It is also the Maximum operating(this is the normal "in use" maximum) not the maximum possible which is much greater as the airframe(structure) is rated to .86 of Mach Speed (the speed of sound) which is approximately 660mph or 573Knots. The question of whether the engines can produce this thrust is of interest but I think considering the fact the aircraft was in a shallow dive from 7,000ft before impact 500mph(434knots) is definitely "possible" and I will endeavour to prove this in time via the simulator at work.

5. Now this next bit is the best bit of disinfo ever. The "Clacker" yes it exists and it is annoying but it does not mean you "can't fly the plane", this is rubbish. The clacker is easily silenced by pulling a single circuit breaker on the overhead panel but I personally believe the aircraft were remote controlled and the crew were dead or not there at all. This in no way supports the "No Plane" theory.

6. Lear says "Remote controlling an aircraft of any size is difficult" and "I don't believe you could remote control a 767/200 to hit a target that size" this is absolutely incorrect and proves to me he is an agent or he has no idea about how an aircraft is flown(impossible). The autopilot system on a 767/200 is a very accurate and can guide the aircraft within feet of it's commanded position it just depends on how good the "position data" is, that determines how close it will be to hitting a ground target etc. The WTC Tower 1 and 2 are not small targets if you are using the autopilot and are not overly concerned with the height you wish to hit the buildings. Firstly lets dispel a idea you may have in your head of remote control, it does not mean that a person is sitting in a room with a joystick control like with a model plane watching a video screen guiding the aircraft, this is ridiculous. What is most plausible is that you would simply be using the same technology that the aircraft would use through it's flight management computer and autopilot system on board. The difference being you control it either using the actual aircraft equipment or the same equipment or programs at a remote location. I will give you just a couple of possible ways to get the aircraft to the target via remote control accurately.
One way might be to plant a GPS tracker/beacon on board the aircraft that could provide accurate updates of the exact aircraft position to the remote control program that was interfacing directly with the FCC's/Flight Control Computers via an added receiver. These computers directly control the aircraft control surfaces. So basically you are operating the aircraft as normal bypassing all pilot control (except breakout through the control column by the pilot with great force) and using the same technology that is used for this purpose, only located remotely. The GPS beacon on board is obviously required to give feed back to the Flight Management Programme, this could of course be done in other ways by receiving data from the aircraft instruments, navigation receivers and inertial reference units but this adds allot of added complications to the set up and is far less accurate as this aircraft was not fitted with military GPS. It may have had standard GPS but this is unlikely in this old model, nearing retirement.
Another way may be to track the aircraft using the extremely accurate Military Precision Radar(tracks missiles) and simply gain control of the Flight Control Computers by an added receiver and some wiring or upgrading. You would just use the same autopilot computer model as used in simulators to control these boxes using the received radar position. You may be aware that the so called "doomsday plane" a 747 with a full control centre set up was in the air above New York that day reportable, I could go on and on but I won't. Here is another thought that proves he is disinfo! Boeing has flown a Boeing 707 remotely back in around 1970 where they were actually doing take off's and landing's all day, finishing with a precision crash as part of the aircraft flight testing, Lear would know this for sure. The idea of remote controlling a 767 and hitting the towers in my mind would be a piece of cake for the Military industrial Complex.

7.Lear says "No wreckage of an airplane at the WTC" well that is just straight out lie, there was wreckage on the ground but most obviously was in the towers that where later destroyed. We do not know exactly what wreckage was found in the rubble as the press or public were not allowed to photograph it! Many photo's of wreckage do exist.

8.Lear says "No wreckage of any size around" so what, a very brittle aluminium structure has just been shredded through an intense steel grid, what would you expect. It was not a slow speed crash on land that we are used to seeing time and time again where the pieces of aircraft break off and are allowed to decelerate gradually, leaving large pieces of debris. No it was a maximum velocity crash into a steel shredder just a little different and as we see it was only the engines that got through semi intact.

9. The engine being the wrong type for a 767? Well I don't know but I would know if I could see it, then we would know. Now the chances of us seeing it with these "No Planers" around is much less likely as we will be defeated in our call for a proper criminal investigation if they continue to discredit us. This is John Lear "speculating" this is not empirical fact, just more B/S.

10. Lear says that they used explosives to blow a hole that looks like the aircraft has hit it, wow........this is so absolutely ridiculous that I can't debunk it, for the only people that would think it was possible are people I hope I will upset by saying you are a fool. Think about it.....really......

11. At the end here he makes a little sense about taking on NIST and introduces his master Moron(Morgan) Reynolds the #1 agent within the 9/11 Movement. He talks about the 500mph aircraft speed that NIST has stated which I cannot say is true or not but I will be following this up as it is the only valid point he makes in this presentation, to argue no 767/200 not "No Plane" hit the WTC.

Now just looking from a presentation angle, do you notice how he just keeps saying there was "No Plane" time and time again as if it is a fact. Look at credible researchers like Steven Jones and Richard Cage the avoid stating the conclusion rather they give you so many facts you reach the conclusion yourself. This piece has agent al over it in my opinion as this man knows better!

The "No Plane" at WTC has no valid argument, I and all proven quality researchers have found this to be the case!

Please look at some info received from Jim Hoffman below. There are some good links.....enjoy and learn....

Kind regards John

http://911review.com/errors/phantom/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html
http://daverabbit.podomatic.com/entr...21_30_40-08_00

This post has been edited by painter: May 26 2008, 06:31 PM
Reason for edit: Moved this post here from another thread
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 15 2008, 02:55 AM
Post #106





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Rob,
When I was doing research for “Impossible Speed & Impact Busted!”, I tried all kinds of avenues of investigation. The best friend of a close relative of mine married an aeronautical engineer who subsequently became a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and, among other things, an adviser to NASA. (I can remember him explaining the so-call reversed-controls effect to me, when the movie “The Sound Barrier”—which dramatised the death of Geoffrey de Havilland during his attempt to fly faster than sound—was released.) When I attempted to contact him, a reply came back that he did not want to discuss anything having to do with 9/11. I’ve also tried to get answers from Boeing and elsewhere, and I can honestly tell you that when one door closes, so does another, another and another....

There is no doubt, in my mind, that planes were involved in New York, because it is inconceivable that all of the videos could have been faked, within the given time frame, and all of the eyewitnesses have been wrong, misled, mass-hypnotised or whatever—holograms are out—so I really don’t think I am “...trying to fit a scenario to an already established theory.” More of an established fact, I would have said. Having said that, I understand why you don’t want to go on anything other than the proven data.

Take care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 15 2008, 03:02 AM
Post #107



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (lawson911 @ May 15 2008, 02:55 AM) *
I’ve also tried to get answers from Boeing and elsewhere, and I can honestly tell you that when one door closes, so does another, another and another....



Welcome to my world. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 15 2008, 03:37 AM
Post #108



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (lawson911 @ May 15 2008, 12:55 AM) *
When I attempted to contact him, a reply came back that he did not want to discuss anything having to do with 9/11. I’ve also tried to get answers from Boeing and elsewhere, and I can honestly tell you that when one door closes, so does another, another and another....


[Channelling Gomer Pyle USMC:] Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!

No offense Anthony- I just HAD to get THAT out of my system (about 10-5 yrs. later). thumbsup.gif

Again, for the record, I have never worked for Boeing.

Best wishes in your quest,
d
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post May 15 2008, 04:12 PM
Post #109





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



Not for nothing but I see the entire "plane speed" issue as a red herring. So what if some type of Boeing COULD go the claimed speed? Wouldn't we have to find a plane 1st before worrying about what kind it was? It seems we have put the cart before the horse. The wheel? Wasn't a wheel found at the Pentagon? An engine part? Ditto. I refer back to Dmole's plane part list and say that we do not have enough plane parts from the AREA of the building we would have wanted to find them if indeed a aplane actually hit the tower(s). Unfortuneately, with the "collapses" of the towers and the subsequent 'cleanups', no parts are forthcoming. Oh, well....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ogrady
post May 15 2008, 07:02 PM
Post #110





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 140
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



Maybe the plane speed and accuracy was possible. Personally, I doubt it, after listening to the statements of pilots on the subject. But let's say it was for the sake of argument. The videos of flight path don't agree, but let's leave that for the moment.

Now, let's think. Could a plane have flown 'through' the building? I've looked at those videos for two years and I say impossible.

I don't see how we can continue to discount the statements of Joseph Keith and Shure's call to Boeing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beachnut
post May 15 2008, 08:01 PM
Post #111





Group: Troll
Posts: 6
Joined: 6-June 07
Member No.: 1,124



Lear thinks people planted the engine that flew out of the WTC? Was it done by the invisible aliens he sees among us? Has he always had problems with reality?

Good post; far out video interview.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 15 2008, 08:51 PM
Post #112



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Although I already posted this list WAAAAY up-thread

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10739628

Jackcahill might find the [off-thread] update to be a little more applicable.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10740197

P.S. Jack- feel free to add to the above list as needed. And for the record, since I don't already know you and it is your first post here, you do NOT have my permission to call me jackass (that I granted to Anthony in that link as a gesture of goodwill).

Out of politeness, I will refrain from "reality" questions until you have a chance to read the list...

This post has been edited by dMole: May 15 2008, 08:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 15 2008, 11:15 PM
Post #113



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



"...really I have accomplished more for 9/11 Truth by not being here..."

1st post eh?

The whole "cut & paste" thing probably isn't all that popular and IS BLATANTLY obvious around here... Oh well, if you have specific questions, then ask them [I'd prefer they have numbers myself].

If you have questions/comments about the John Lear thread, I believe that is located at:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=12285

EDIT: please read the FULL thread first...

d cleanup.gif

This post has been edited by dMole: May 15 2008, 11:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 15 2008, 11:53 PM
Post #114





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



QUOTE (ogrady @ May 15 2008, 07:02 PM) *
Maybe the plane speed and accuracy was possible. Personally, I doubt it, after listening to the statements of pilots on the subject. But let's say it was for the sake of argument. The videos of flight path don't agree, but let's leave that for the moment.

Now, let's think. Could a plane have flown 'through' the building? I've looked at those videos for two years and I say impossible.

I don't see how we can continue to discount the statements of Joseph Keith and Shure's call to Boeing.


"The flight paths do not agree." Can you back that up?

I am an experienced editor, and I have cut many sequences using as many of the videos that I can get hold of: I can find no discrepancies in the flight path. When worked back from the point of impact, the shots cut together with accurate positional continuity. (Some of the available clips have been slowed down, so care is required.)

A plane did not fly through the building; the nose-in-nose-out myth is just that, a myth. So, yes, you are right: It was impossible for a plane to have flown through the 208 foot-wide building, but that does not mean that it did not enter the building, as seen in the videos.

The three Boeing people commenting in the pumpshitout video were not aeronautical engineers. Joseph Keith was a software engineer; Leslie Hazzard is listed as a spokesperson for Boeing and Lori Bechtold: “...evaluates commonly available electronics, like cellular phones, as components of the complex mix of electronic systems used on airplanes.”

But since you've brought that up, Shure aka Jeffrey Hill did not ask John del Giorno if he saw the plane that he allegedly videoed; he merely waffled around and did not tell the whole truth when del Giorno asked him "Who are you with?" "Oh, just a Canadian independent.", he said. He didn't say that he was preparing a video implying that del Giorno and Carmen Taylor, to whom he also spoke, were liars, thus not giving them the opportunity to defend themselves.

Why do people do such things? More importantly: Why do people believe them, without checking?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post May 16 2008, 09:25 PM
Post #115





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



Lawson, plain and simple. Where is the plane? I mean, the TWA800 investigators went to the bottom of the ocean in their determination to piece togerther the plane. Again, where are all the parts on Dmole's list? Please, don't tell me about the wheel or engine part found near the WTC, the same parts were "found' at the Pentagon. Now, I understand the buildings were control demolitioned but why no pictures or photos of debris that would surely have been there UNDER THE GASHES before the demolitions or in the tower debris during the cleanup? You mean to tell me the not a single part fell to the ground during either hit? Forgive me if I find that claim absurd. And the tower cleanup crews found no major plane parts of any kind worth photographing? I mean jesus, the plane was tough enough to slice through steel beams but can't stand a crummy demolition? There are many of photos and videos of steel beams and rebar in the WTC cleanup and yet 2 huge planes just dissapear? No debris is found? I didn't know David Blaine is a Neocon. Hhhmmm...

BTW Lawson, I have bever read anywhere of your opinion on the Pentagon and Shanksville 'hits'. Did planes crash at the sites? Yes or no.

This post has been edited by Quest: May 17 2008, 03:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post May 16 2008, 10:21 PM
Post #116





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



that has always been the proof of a cover-up: that the "collision with terrain sites" were not secured and worked as crime scenes.

as most of us know, all critical aircraft components are serialized, trackable.

for the events of that day, the potus did not want these components identified, tracked.

and that can only mean one thing, that the potus knew that the evidence would contradict the "official conspiracy theory".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 17 2008, 12:11 AM
Post #117





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



QUOTE (Quest @ May 16 2008, 09:25 PM) *
Lawson, plain and simple. Where is the plane? I mean, the TWA800 investigators went to the bottom of the ocean to in their determination to piece togerther the plane. Again, where are all the parts on Dmole's list? Please, don't tell me about the wheel or engine part found near the WTC, the same parts were "found' at the Pentagon. Now, I understand the buildings were control demolitioned but why no pictures or photos of debris that would surely have been there UNDER THE GASHES before the demolitions or in the tower debris during the cleanup? You mean to tell me the not a single part fell to the ground during either hit? Forgive me if I find that claim absurd. And the tower cleanup crews found no major plane parts of any kind worth photographing? I mean jesus, the plane was tough enough to slice through steel beams but can't stand a crummy demolition? There are many of photos and videos of steel beams and rebar in the WTC cleanup and yet 2 huge planes just dissapear? No debris is found? I didn't know David Blaine is a Neocon. Hhhmmm...

BTW Lawson, I have bever read anywhere of your opinion on the Pentagon and Shanksville 'hits'. Did planes crash at the sites? Yes or no.


You are asking the wrong person. How could I possibly know how such a cover-up could have been acheived? I could theorise, but that would be meaningless. All I can tell you is that I cannot believe that all of the videos could have been so well faked, in such a short time frame, using the Tower exploding as an end point, as cameras followed a non-existant object, but still accurately panned or moved across the N.Y. skyline to end up on the Tower at the exact moment it exploded. Impossible!

As far as timed-continuity is concerned, these shots all match, and until someone can explain how they were faked, I will believe that the videos show what happened, and that the eyewitness reports are, largely, accurate.

No, I don't think planes crashed at Shanksville or the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 17 2008, 01:11 AM
Post #118



Group Icon

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



ok folks... im getting a bit tired of being misquoted and flat out lies being spread about what i have said. So, in the interest of clarity i will give you my opinion. This is not a position of P4T since the organization as whole does not offer theory (or opinion). This is my opnion only.

I feel remote guidance at the WTC is highly possible.

I lean towards planes hitting the WTC for the fact i know several crews who watched it happen while waiting for departure at JFK and EWR and due to the numerous witnesses and video.

I dont know if the speeds are possible for a stock 767. We are trying to find out by obtaining data.

I dont know if the 767's were aerodynamically modified. We are trying to find out by obtaining data.

I dont have the expertise to determine "video fakery".

Feel free to quote ME and me only, not pilotsfor911truth.org as we do not offer theory.


Anthony, i enjoy having you here due to your expertise in video.

Quest, i enjoy having you here because you tend to be a voice of reason trying to smooth things over between disputes.

GH, i find your stuff fascinating, i like you as a person, although this doesnt mean i believe everytihng you present. wink.gif

If anyone feels left out... i love you too... biggrin.gif

Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post May 17 2008, 02:24 AM
Post #119


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,871
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 16 2008, 10:11 PM) *
If anyone feels left out... i love you too... biggrin.gif


Ah wub.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 17 2008, 08:17 AM
Post #120





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Rob,
I hope I have not misquoted you; if I have done so, it was not intentional, and I am very pleased to have your opinion about the New York attacks.

With regard to being an “expert in video”, that is not how I would describe myself, because video/film-graphics techniques are developing as fast as the movie and game-making studios can make them happen, and my 16-year-old son knows more about that side of things than I do. I would describe myself as an experienced editor, well versed in the pitfalls of continuity lapses as well as a patient observer, who is prepared to run the shots over and over again, to try and spot any anomalies. For real expertise in video editing and graphics techniques, Eric Salter is the man. Anyone who is really interested in learning more about alleged 9/11 video fakery, I would recommend that they Google questionsquestions + <Eric Salter> and start off with:

QUOTE
A Critcal Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories Eric Salter has more than a decade of professional video experience, which has included editing, 3D animation, compositing, motion graphics, ... http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html


I appreciate being able to post on this website, and I hope it can be to our mutual benefit and to the vital cause of finding out the truth. My current mantra is:

If it’s official, it almost certainly isn’t true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » 
Closed 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: 1st December 2021 - 11:39 AM