IPB




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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Videos Proves Fakery On 1st Tower Gash

Quest
post Jan 5 2008, 10:43 PM
Post #1





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



This video clearly demonstrates that the Naudet brothers' video was tampered with to make the 1st strike gash appear wider than it was. It also offers evidence that the gashes were created by demolition charges. There is however, still the possibility that a missile was for the initial strike.

911 Amateur Part 2
http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

This post has been edited by Quest: Jan 16 2008, 03:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
georgie101
post Jan 6 2008, 07:50 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 20-October 06
From: south london, uk
Member No.: 114



Thanks Quest, probably one of the best examples of the North tower explosion I have seen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jan 6 2008, 06:08 PM
Post #3





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



QUOTE (georgie101 @ Jan 6 2008, 11:50 AM)
Thanks Quest, probably one of the best examples of the North tower explosion I have seen.

Anytime, Georgie. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Quest: Jan 6 2008, 06:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ogrady
post Jan 11 2008, 08:52 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 139
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



Thanks for posting this. I found it last night. Could it be any clearer? This is irrefutable!

I spent a year looking at planes dissolving effortlessly into buildings, trying to understand what I was looking at. I feel so stupid now. I used to think the Loose Change boys were heroes. I have quite changed by opinion. Retelling the government's story of hijackers and hijacked planes is doing the perps work for them.

Do you notice how many 'no plane' videos are removed for "terms of use violations" or are "no longer available"? Pure evidence that this information has struck gold!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Jan 12 2008, 06:28 AM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (ogrady @ Jan 12 2008, 12:52 AM)
Thanks for posting this. I found it last night. Could it be any clearer? This is irrefutable!

I spent a year looking at planes dissolving effortlessly into buildings, trying to understand what I was looking at. I feel so stupid now. I used to think the Loose Change boys were heroes. I have quite changed by opinion. Retelling the government's story of hijackers and hijacked planes is doing the perps work for them.

Do you notice how many 'no plane' videos are removed for "terms of use violations" or are "no longer available"? Pure evidence that this information has struck gold!

Ummm no, sorry Ogrady but that video is easily, completely and absolutely refutable.

See here for how: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13099
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Philadelphia
post Jan 12 2008, 08:06 AM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 71
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 2,505



One day Chek will tell us what he actually believes happened on 9/11/2001. But don't hold your breath.

He is one of those people who believe the many examples of video fakes have a rational explanation. He insists real planes really DID hit the Twin Towers. So 'fakes' were not broadcast live on TV. He believes sooner or later serial numbers on the plane parts at the WTC will be released. He believes he is serving the truth. And he so much wants to get to the truth. Don't you Chek ? 6 years later he is still waiting for those serial numbers. It's all a terrible misunderstanding, he says. There are no faked broadcasts.

I wanted to ask Chek whether he has seen live televised film of a mile long suspension bridge moving several miles up the Hudson river during the events of 9/11. Broadcast right on live televised footage. This too, Chek says, has nothing to do with fakery. We simply don't understand the problems of filming such as perspective, right ? So a bridge which is located around 7 miles to the south of Ground Zero first appears about 5 miles to the north of Ground Zero on live TV. It then starts moving and finally stops after it has passed behind the Twin Towers.

'Yes', says Check. 'But that doesn't prove anything false about the live broadcasts'.

Err.....

This post has been edited by Philadelphia: Jan 12 2008, 08:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Jan 12 2008, 12:17 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (Philadelphia @ Jan 12 2008, 12:06 PM)
One day Chek will tell us what he actually believes happened on 9/11/2001. But don't hold your breath.

He is one of those people who believe the many examples of video fakes have a rational explanation. He insists real planes really DID hit the Twin Towers. So 'fakes' were not broadcast live on TV. He believes sooner or later serial numbers on the plane parts at the WTC will be released. He believes he is serving the truth. And he so much wants to get to the truth. Don't you Chek ? 6 years later he is still waiting for those serial numbers. It's all a terrible misunderstanding, he says. There are no faked broadcasts.

I wanted to ask Chek whether he has seen live televised film of a mile long suspension bridge moving several miles up the Hudson river during the events of 9/11. Broadcast right on live televised footage. This too, Chek says, has nothing to do with fakery. We simply don't understand the problems of filming such as perspective, right ? So a bridge which is located around 7 miles to the south of Ground Zero first appears about 5 miles to the north of Ground Zero on live TV. It then starts moving and finally stops after it has passed behind the Twin Towers.

'Yes', says Check. 'But that doesn't prove anything false about the live broadcasts'.

Err.....

That's right Philedelphia. It only proves you know little about multi-element telephoto lenses.

In the case of the Verrazano Narrows bridge, you'll maybe notice that compared to cheaper telephotos, the entire background stays in focus.

And to set the record straight, yes I believe the plane strikes happened as cover for the demolitions. They represented the supposedly unstoppable outside force that masked the access necessary to CD the Towers.

No mystery there to anyone not obsessed with the NPT/Fakery meme.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Philadelphia
post Jan 12 2008, 01:24 PM
Post #8





Group: Newbie
Posts: 71
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 2,505



That's right Philedelphia. It only proves you know little about multi-element telephoto lenses.

In the case of the Verrazano Narrows bridge, you'll maybe notice that compared to cheaper telephotos, the entire background stays in focus.

And to set the record straight, yes I believe the plane strikes happened as cover for the demolitions. They represented the supposedly unstoppable outside force that masked the access necessary to CD the Towers.


Chek, do you know anyone on this planet who can film a group of skyscrapers and have a suspension bridge in the frame (which is actually located far off the shot to the left side 7 miles away from Ground Zero) to somehow appear in the shot though in the very opposite direction from its location - i.e. first appearing around 5 miles to the extreme RIGHT side !!! ? Anyone at all ? And for this same Verranzo Narrows bridge to apparently move miles down river in front of our eyes until it appears to pass behind the fixed skyscrapers still being filmed- with the skyscrapers themselves not moving significantly during all of this amazing journey of several minutes ?

Do please tell us about 'multi-element' telephoto lenses Chek ? Care to repeat the feat ? Isn't this a cardinal rule of science, that experiments must be able to be repeated before they are accepted as scientifically valid ? Can you find a cameraman on this planet able to replicate (let alone explain) this fantastic event ? Can you explain in detail what you mean by 'multi element' telephoto lenses in the case of the Verranzano Bridge incident ?

You mean, of course, satellite images ? Right ?

This post has been edited by Philadelphia: Jan 12 2008, 01:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Jan 12 2008, 06:11 PM
Post #9





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



More disinformation from the disinfo artists! This part of the forum is seeming more and more like a fictional underground world that people want to believe or have come true. Not only is there zero proof of video fakery, there is 100% proof of aircraft impact. There is no "secondary explosion" as the author of the video incorrectly asserts. It is the same fireball.

Secondly, there is no "gouge" that is magically written in to the video. Why would someone write a gouge into the video from left to right? If there was supposed to be a gouge there, it would have been put in at impact, not "appear to be written in" from left to right bs. This is not a gouge at all in fact, it is dark smoke coming out of the windows. The smoke apparently subsides as it cannot be seen in later videos.

The people that assert these disinformation hoaxes and "theories" are as low as the J.R.E.F.ers and government disinfo agents trying to prove true 9/11 research false. angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ogrady
post Jan 12 2008, 07:32 PM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 139
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



Chek:

There is no hole in the building that would have accommodated an 'airplane' wing effortlessly gliding through - until after th
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ogrady
post Jan 12 2008, 07:44 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 139
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



Chek:

(Excuse partial preceding post)

There is no hole that would have accommodated an 'airplane' wing effortlessly gliding through the building - until after the cutter charges created one. The resulting 'plane-shaped' hole in the building would not have been wide enough to accommodate a 160-ft. wingspan without the black smudge.

Long before I ever heard of Simon Shack, I have stepped through the Naudet footage, frame-by-frame. At no time does the fuzzy object in the video look anything like an airplane. Flight 11 was not scheduled to fly on 911. No plane - no flight.

Your theorizing regarding the multiple explosions that happen on multiple floors simultaneously is pure conjecture. How many gallons of fuel would it have taken to cause such huge explosions inside the building? I don't know and you don't either.

I continue to wonder at your dogged pursuit of a topic that you say is so completely beneath consideration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Jan 12 2008, 10:26 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (Philadelphia @ Jan 12 2008, 05:24 PM)
That's right Philedelphia. It only proves you know little about multi-element telephoto lenses.

In the case of the Verrazano Narrows bridge, you'll maybe notice that compared to cheaper telephotos, the entire background stays in focus.

And to set the record straight, yes I believe the plane strikes happened as cover for the demolitions. They represented the supposedly unstoppable outside force that masked the access necessary to CD the Towers.


Chek, do you know anyone on this planet who can film a group of skyscrapers and have a suspension bridge in the frame (which is actually located far off the shot to the left side 7 miles away from Ground Zero) to somehow appear in the shot though in the very opposite direction from its location - i.e. first appearing around 5 miles to the extreme RIGHT side !!! ? Anyone at all ? And for this same Verranzo Narrows bridge to apparently move miles down river in front of our eyes until it appears to pass behind the fixed skyscrapers still being filmed- with the skyscrapers themselves not moving significantly during all of this amazing journey of several minutes ?

Do please tell us about 'multi-element' telephoto lenses Chek ? Care to repeat the feat ? Isn't this a cardinal rule of science, that experiments must be able to be repeated before they are accepted as scientifically valid ? Can you find a cameraman on this planet able to replicate (let alone explain) this fantastic event ? Can you explain in detail what you mean by 'multi element' telephoto lenses in the case of the Verranzano Bridge incident ?

You mean, of course, satellite images ? Right ?

Philadelphia, get off your arse, go down your local college and or camera club and find out.

Failing that, get yourself down to your local DVD emporium and watch the diner scene in Goodfellas. The scenery isn't on wheels, its a multi-element lens that gives that effect. What really gets me is that you've been through all this at UK911 but it refuses to sink in.

It's as if you prefer your fantasy version.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Jan 12 2008, 10:29 PM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (ogrady @ Jan 12 2008, 11:44 PM)
Chek:

(Excuse partial preceding post)

There is no hole that would have accommodated an 'airplane' wing effortlessly gliding through the building - until after the cutter charges created one. The resulting 'plane-shaped' hole in the building would not have been wide enough to accommodate a 160-ft. wingspan without the black smudge.

Long before I ever heard of Simon Shack, I have stepped through the Naudet footage, frame-by-frame. At no time does the fuzzy object in the video look anything like an airplane. Flight 11 was not scheduled to fly on 911. No plane - no flight.

Your theorizing regarding the multiple explosions that happen on multiple floors simultaneously is pure conjecture. How many gallons of fuel would it have taken to cause such huge explosions inside the building? I don't know and you don't either.

I continue to wonder at your dogged pursuit of a topic that you say is so completely beneath consideration.

That is incorrect. The wing slash in the cladding is plainly visible immediately above Shack's indicated 'painted in cut'.

That's always been the case - this 'painted in' nonsense from Shack is transparently false as shown in the UK911 link.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Jan 12 2008, 10:30 PM
Post #14





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



QUOTE (ogrady @ Jan 12 2008, 07:44 PM)
The resulting 'plane-shaped' hole in the building would not have been wide enough to accommodate a 160-ft. wingspan without the black smudge.

The "black smudge" as i've indicated in my above post, is black smoke coming out of the windows. That "black smudge" appears from left to right in the disinfo video from the disinfo agent socialservice. Nobody would "write-in" a smudge from left to right as the video is playing, and try to pass it off as an impact hole. Either the hole is there or it isn't and from all video shots, it isn't. What appears to be more logical is the "black smudge" is nothing more than dark black smoke coming out of the windows from left to right away from the impact hole, as every other normal fire would.

Further, had you done any actual research and seen all the impact videos, you would certainly know that the whole entire wing lengths did not create holes. The wing tips did not create holes in the buildings, only the strongest portion of the wings created impact holes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Jan 12 2008, 10:36 PM
Post #15





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Jan 12 2008, 10:11 PM)
More disinformation from the disinfo artists! This part of the forum is seeming more and more like a fictional underground world that people want to believe or have come true. Not only is there zero proof of video fakery, there is 100% proof of aircraft impact. There is no "secondary explosion" as the author of the video incorrectly asserts. It is the same fireball.

Secondly, there is no "gouge" that is magically written in to the video. Why would someone write a gouge into the video from left to right? If there was supposed to be a gouge there, it would have been put in at impact, not "appear to be written in" from left to right bs. This is not a gouge at all in fact, it is dark smoke coming out of the windows. The smoke apparently subsides as it cannot be seen in later videos.

The people that assert these disinformation hoaxes and "theories" are as low as the J.R.E.F.ers and government disinfo agents trying to prove true 9/11 research false. angry.gif

If I didn't know better I'd think it was almost like a pincer movement, BoneZ wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Jan 13 2008, 12:18 AM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



QUOTE
Pure evidence that this information has struck gold!


...would that be Fools Gold or Perps` Gold?


...when i first viewed this vid` i thought it was obvious to anyone with a full set of marbles that it was smoke... but could`nt be bothered to waste the energy to type a response!

rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Philadelphia
post Jan 13 2008, 07:21 AM
Post #17





Group: Newbie
Posts: 71
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 2,505



QUOTE (chek @ Jan 12 2008, 09:26 PM)
QUOTE (Philadelphia @ Jan 12 2008, 05:24 PM)
That's right Philedelphia. It only proves you know little about multi-element telephoto lenses.

In the case of the Verrazano Narrows bridge, you'll maybe notice that compared to cheaper telephotos, the entire background stays in focus.

And to set the record straight, yes I believe the plane strikes happened as cover for the demolitions. They represented the supposedly unstoppable outside force that masked the access necessary to CD the Towers.


Chek, do you know anyone on this planet who can film a group of skyscrapers and have a suspension bridge in the frame (which is actually located far off the shot to the left side 7 miles away from Ground Zero) to somehow appear in the shot though in the very opposite direction from its location - i.e. first appearing around 5 miles to the extreme RIGHT side !!! ? Anyone at all ? And for this same Verranzo Narrows bridge to apparently move miles down river in front of our eyes until it appears to pass behind the fixed skyscrapers still  being filmed- with the skyscrapers themselves not moving significantly during all of this amazing journey of several minutes ?

Do please tell us about 'multi-element' telephoto lenses Chek ? Care to repeat the feat ? Isn't this a cardinal rule of science, that experiments must be able to be repeated before they are accepted as scientifically valid ? Can you find a cameraman on this planet able to replicate (let alone explain) this fantastic event ? Can you explain in detail what you mean by 'multi element' telephoto lenses in the case of the Verranzano Bridge incident ?

You mean, of course, satellite images ? Right ?

Philadelphia, get off your arse, go down your local college and or camera club and find out.

Failing that, get yourself down to your local DVD emporium and watch the diner scene in Goodfellas. The scenery isn't on wheels, its a multi-element lens that gives that effect. What really gets me is that you've been through all this at UK911 but it refuses to sink in.

It's as if you prefer your fantasy version.


So let's get this right. Chek believes a mile long suspension bridge can appear to walk miles down the Hudson River in a few minutes from a starting position on live TV that is miles north of its real position, and this can occur due to factors that anyone can find out about at their local camera club. Here is categorical proof that Chek will and does believe virtually anything.

May I remind you Check -

1. The true location of the Verranzano bridge is not even in the original shot
2. At no time did the camera point in the true direction of the Verranzano bridge
3. The camera is pointed to the Twin Towers during the time of the supposed movement of the bridge.
4. The Verranzano bridge first appears on the screen many miles from its true location


So, what is your explanation of this clear cockup in the televised broadcast Chek ?
Having blanked out the background for much of the televised output, and having messed about with the city foreground, the towers themselves etc. the ultimate proof of monkey business is this Verranzano bridge incident. Monkey business which Chek cannot explain. The images of that bridge are of course false. They are fake. They give a false visual impression. Because the people who made the images were fakers and their fakery went wrong.

**Edited by BoneZ** Final warning on personal attacks.

This post has been edited by BoneZ: Jan 13 2008, 09:29 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Jan 13 2008, 09:26 AM
Post #18





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



QUOTE (CocaineImportAgency @ Jan 13 2008, 12:18 AM)
QUOTE
Pure evidence that this information has struck gold!


...would that be Fools Gold or Perps` Gold?

I'm gonna say, Perps' gold. I'm really starting to wonder about the intelligence of people that will say that the black smoke is a gouge/gash written into the video and written in in real time from left to right. blink.gif :ph43r:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Jan 13 2008, 09:30 AM
Post #19





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



Philadelphia, this is your final warning on personal attacks. Focus your energy on theories and ideas, not people. Read the rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Jan 13 2008, 09:41 AM
Post #20





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



QUOTE (Philadelphia @ Jan 13 2008, 07:21 AM)
Having blanked out the background for much of the televised output, and having messed about with the city foreground, the towers themselves etc. the ultimate proof of monkey business is this Verranzano bridge incident. Monkey business which Chek cannot explain. The images of that bridge are of course false. They are fake. They give a false visual impression. Because the people who made the images were fakers and their fakery went wrong.

The only thing that's false is the ideas/theories you just spewed. Spewing false ideas and then proclaiming them as true, is known as disinfo. You may not be spewing disinfo on purpose. It is just a matter of knowledge. Your knowledge of distance, perception, focus, etc. that has to deal with photography and videography is lacking. My advice is go do some research/learning about distance, perception, focus and other things that deal with photography and videography and then you will see that what you are saying is truly false, not a bridge moving. The bridge is not moving, the helicopter with the camera inside is moving. Please go do some real research before spewing more false and misleading information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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 August 2014 - 02:16 AM