FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Finally! A basic 3d model that debunks Fakery!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lee
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:47 am    Post subject: Finally! A basic 3d model that debunks Fakery! Reply with quote

Check this out EVERYONE who still insists that the live shots on 9/11 are all totally different flight paths proving tv fakery was used.

Read 'em an' weep I believe is the correct phrase.


Link


Thanks for the pointer T. john
Cheers! Very Happy

_________________
For the TV fakery people.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790


Last edited by Lee on Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not a mod but if you use www. instead of uk. its the same video and embeds using the youtube /youtube codes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbwVVN5c-eI

I like the music! Wish those fakery people wouldn't argue though.

_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice one!

you have to watch genghis' video "911chameleon p1" to see what this clip is getting at but once you've done that it's obvious that genghis is wrong as usual....

what he claims is "impossible" is in reality entirely possible if you create a 3D model and look at it from different perspectives. something that genghis should really have verified himself before making his claims - but he's either a very sloppy researcher or deliberately trying to deceive (or both).

as well as appearing to be mentally ill (see HERE for more info) genghis simply doesn't understand perspective and that real life takes place in 3D and not 2D (see HERE for more info). the trouble is that he won't stop making the same claims no matter how many times he's proved wrong.

the only thing that's different about 911 chameleon is that his taste seems to have changed a bit - genghis' other "planes crashing into buildings and killing hundreds of people set to music" videos that I've seen have had more of a nu-metal vibe - but take away the loud music, big coloured letters, misleading statements and careful video editing - and it's just the usual reality-defying stupidity that is typical of the genre.... Rolling Eyes

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The staggering thing is that the spatial awareness of the no planers seems to be so impaired that a model is required to clarify things for them.

That a whole sub cult has emerged base on assumed ideas about the capabilities of electronic imaging technology combined with an apparently widespread perception deficiency is ... interesting, to say the least.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lee
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fancy being 'responsible' and engaging with this counter evidence Keith?

Or cant you 'face' it?

_________________
For the TV fakery people.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jfk
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it seems you are relying on video evidence of the 'plane', that has not been verified as authentic by any experts, to prove your point.
even if the model shows the flightpaths are roughly the same that does not mean the 'planes' depicted are not cgi.

if we are to use the video evidence to compare flightpaths, then an explaination is needed for the 'object' seen at 1.09 - 1.15


Link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you sure you should be posting this just yet jfk?

I thought it was the turn of the nazi disruptors this week.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lee
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jfk wrote:
it seems you are relying on video evidence of the 'plane', that has not been verified as authentic by any experts, to prove your point.


So what are you relying on to prove there were no planes?..errr...videos of 'planes'...I can see by your logic how you may have fallen for tvf.

Quote:
even if the model shows the flightpaths are roughly the same that does not mean the 'planes' depicted are not cgi.


Shocked ...???

Is that you jfk...? Really?..using critical thinking!!!?

You're right. It does not prove that there were actual physical planes used on 9/11.

What it does prove though, oh so watertightly, is that perspective plays a MASSIVE role in the perceived difference in flight paths.

Something largely ignored by your cult-leaders.

Simply trotting out the same old fakery line of "look the flight paths are all different, that proves fakery!" as in Septic Clues and 9/11 Chamelyin', is no longer (if it ever was) valid in any way and anyone posting anything like that from now on is obviously just one of the cultic-herd. As we already know. Or worse.

_________________
For the TV fakery people.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790


Last edited by Lee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jfk
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Who knows, maybe it is a UFO afterall, but would it be a real or a fake one? Perhaps you could ask that question at the next sermon at the church of tvf...?


it's certainly not a plane
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jfk wrote:
it's certainly not a plane


Please explain the reasons for your use of "certainly".
Within the context of aircraft shape, direction of travel, view angle and camera resolution.

I deduce what you actually mean is that you wouldn't like it to be a plane because of your beliefs, but that's no basis for claiming certainty.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lee
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jfk wrote:

it's certainly not a plane


That was quick. There was a sermon last night then.

Please tell the congregation that this answer will not suffice.

During the next speaking-in-tongues session, please ask the Lord of the Trance to provide you all with a longer, more detailed verse to blea - I mean repeat ad nauseum.

Remember to ask...

Why he compares a clip of 13 secs with one of 4 secs.

Why he chooses to ignore the issue of PERSPECTIVE as in the 3d model as shown above.

What he thinks of the Pirelli plane crash in 2002 which bears all the same hallmarks parroted by tvf'ers.(see links below)

Then after asking him, pay careful attention to his answer.

For it will be the next verse thou will bleat upon every forum under the sun.

_________________
For the TV fakery people.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee wrote:
jfk wrote:
it's certainly not a plane


That was quick. There was a sermon last night then.

Please tell the congregation that this answer will not suffice.

During the next speaking-in-tongues session, please ask the Lord of the Trance to provide you all with a longer, more detailed verse to blea - I mean repeat ad nauseum.
Rolling Eyes
Bible, I Cor 14:7-9" http://isv.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/14.htm wrote:
7In the same way, lifeless instruments like the flute or harp produce sounds. But if there's no difference in the notes, how can a person tell what tune is being played? 8For example, if a bugle doesn't sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9In the same way, unless you speak an intelligible message with your language, how will anyone know what is being said? You'll be talking into the air!


Couldn't resist it. Laughing

_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jfk
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
jfk wrote:
it's certainly not a plane


Please explain the reasons for your use of "certainly".
Within the context of aircraft shape, direction of travel, view angle and camera resolution.

I deduce what you actually mean is that you wouldn't like it to be a plane because of your beliefs, but that's no basis for claiming certainty.


well, well, if "the object" IS a 'plane', why is it not in this shot?
at 8. 38


Link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lee
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a pictorial explanation for jfk...again - *sigh* - in the hope that he will one day break free from his cult-conditioning.

jfk wrote:
well, well, if "the object" IS a 'plane', why is it not in this shot?
at 8. 38


The 'object' jfk is referring to is this as seen in the first video he posted on this thread...



You can see it, the small dark spot at the top right of the screen, directly vertical with the pyramid topped building to the right of wtc1.

Note the screen-shot time of 1:09.

It then sweeps down to the top right corner of the north tower taking around six seconds to do so.

Note 1:15...



Note the time 1:15. It then disappears behind both towers on its way to impact at 1:20.



Note 1:20. That's around 5 seconds from the plane disappearing behind the towers to impact.

Now...

Below is the shot in question from the second video jfk posted on this thread when he says...
jfk wrote:
well, well, if "the object" IS a 'plane', why is it not in this shot?
at 8. 38


It actually starts as seen at 8:37



"Where's the plane!? TV fakery alert!!!" Screams jfk...

Then we see 5 seconds later...8:42...impact.



So...the vid-screenshot at 8:37 from the second jfk vid is the same point in time as the vid-screenshot at 1:15 from the first jfk vid...i.e. the plane is just disappearing behind the towers in both shots...5 seconds from impact...

1:15 to 1:20 in first vid.
8:37 to 8:42 in second vid.

Simple really.

The shot that the plane is 'not' in according to jfk starts from the point at which the plane is disappearing behind the towers in the first video he posted on this thread.

The reason jfk cant see it is because it's just about to disappear behind the towers. But, not realizing that both clips are not the same length, he's looking for it at the point at which it appears in the first clip i.e. vertically above the pyramid topped building.

If you watch the second vid he posted at 8:37 onwards, taking into account the flight path of the 'object' in the first vid you can see it just disappearing behind the north tower at the same location that the 'object' does in the first.

You need to have your wits about you to see it at 8:37 - 39 so that discounts jfk.

Can anyone else? Or is it just me?

_________________
For the TV fakery people.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi jfk - here's another thing for you and your fellow npt sheeple to consider....

why do you think that the npt/tvfakery disinfo depends on images of such low quality and resolution?

let's pretend for the sake of argument that the person in this photo is really you, and you're standing in the street wearing this t-shirt which, as you can see, has been decorated with a slogan.


everything looks pretty clear doesn't it?

but what if I took a series of photos of you standing in the same place, wearing the same t shirt and using the same camera settings - but from a few yards further away each time?

if we looked at these photos, the image of you would get smaller and the slogan on your t shirt would become more and more difficult to read. As I moved further back I'd soon reach a distance from which you could still see that there was something on your shirt, but you wouldn't be able to make out the individual letters. Eventually I'd reach a distance from which you couldn't see the slogan at all - just a brown shirt.

if we blew up this particular photo so the image of you was the same size as the one above - but with no slogan visible - would this mean that it was never there?

and in the blown-up photo you would also look very blurred and rather different from how you'd normally expect - would this mean that the photo was fake?

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello again fellow 911 Truth seekers!

And hello of course to jfk.

Jfk, I found myself curious as to why, after every so-called piece of 'proof' or even 'evidence' you have ever offered has been shown to be absolute knobbins, you still persist like a Tottenham Court Rd. scientologist.

So I'm curious as to what the crucial thing is that drives your belief.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire

PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Think it must be his belief which drives his belief
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lee
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

truthseeker john wrote:
Think it must be his belief which drives his belief


Yep, that's a good definition of a cult. The belief is the driving force not examination and/or acceptance of counter-evidence.

_________________
For the TV fakery people.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jfk
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok so, if the 'object' is the 'plane', why do these video's from the same angle show different flightpaths and backgrounds.

1.40 - 3.37


Link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jfk wrote:
ok so, if the 'object' is the 'plane', why do these video's from the same angle show different flightpaths and backgrounds.

1.40 - 3.37


Link


Perfect.

A full circle.

The thread starts with the claim of different flightpaths and backgrounds (as it was NOT the same angle) being utterly and completly debunked, then jfk tries some other lame argument which falls on it's face in no time at all, and THEN comes back to the initial debunked point - as though the debunking never happened.

I'm not trying to be abusive but I think you should get a brain scan - something very wrong is going on inside your skull....

_________________


Peace and Truth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I reckon that there's a small cadre of npt sheeple whose role it is to promote the videos of simon shack et al in forums like this one.

whenever a new video comes out they are told to post it and are given some instructions about what brainless remarks to make about the video. then - after it inevitably gets debunked - they are all zapped with one of those "Men in Black" memory-remover thingys and sent back with a new video....

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jfk
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The thread starts with the claim of different flightpaths and backgrounds (as it was NOT the same angle) being utterly and completly debunked,


why do you think the angle is different?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

see what I mean?

the effects of perspective have been explained to jfk many, many times.

it's obvious that his memory has been wiped! Smile

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lee
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No-planers are in denial.

"There were no planes! It was all a tv hoax!" they cry.

They desperately want 9/11 to have never happened.

I genuinely have sympathy for you jfk. You have found something that gives your life a purpose. The battle of no-planes "truth".

You'll do anything to avoid the fact that the cult you follow is as baseless as scientology or some such.

It's like watching some sort of ape leap from branch to branch avoiding a predator.

It would be quite impressive if it wasn't so...saddening.

The only thing fake about tv-fakery is the evidence they present.

The best thing for you to do is try to debunk your own beliefs. Not just rehash your argument to suit the conclusion.

I and many others have repeatedly debunked it all on this forum.

Perhaps you really are a relentless limpet shill afterall. But if you are an example of the best They have to offer, we have absolutely nothing to fear.

_________________
For the TV fakery people.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mr nice
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Location: In a camper

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holy crapola!
Are these people still going on and on about "no planes" based on over compressed,edited and out of focus video shot on camcorders at maximum zoom by overexcited Americans?
is "nose out"Embarassed still doing the rounds jfk?
some people have got more imagination than sense.....
I have been away from the net for most of this year and thought a bit naively that this nonsense would have faded away.... Rolling Eyes

_________________
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground.
David Icke
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jfk wrote:
Quote:
The thread starts with the claim of different flightpaths and backgrounds (as it was NOT the same angle) being utterly and completly debunked,


why do you think the angle is different?


It wasn't - the camera angle was different - have you even watched the video in the leading post???

Watch it carefully, and then see if you can be big enough to back down, renounce no-planes and join the ranks of the sane.

Honestly I promise you we will not brag or bray - we will respect you immensely if you find your self man enough to admit you were wrong.

It's far worse that you continue with these debunked theories just to avoid admitting you were wrong. We've all been wrong before - there's no shame in it, the only shame is in letting pride get in the way of admitting it.

_________________


Peace and Truth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3172
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mr nice wrote:
Holy crapola!
Are these people still going on and on about "no planes" based on over compressed,edited and out of focus video shot on camcorders at maximum zoom by overexcited Americans?
is "nose out"Embarassed still doing the rounds jfk?
some people have got more imagination than sense.....
I have been away from the net for most of this year and thought a bit naively that this nonsense would have faded away.... Rolling Eyes


Afraid so

Some conspiracy hobbiests wont give up the safety zone of keeping it just how they can handle it: a hobby

So talking the same nonsense about the same nonsense for over a year gives them a sense of catharsis yet also a feeling of safety: I believe on some level because they know they arnt doing anything important and may be able to put their heads down and play harmless looney when the * comes down for the real activists who actually want to challenge things

Well it was their time to waste and time is running out

That's the truth of it IMHO

_________________
We are not a community looking to believe: We are a community dedicated to seeing what is

Enjoy the View from the Hills:
http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lee
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jfk.

Direct questions to you. Yes/no answers please.

1: Do you accept, after watching the video at the top of this thread, that perspective plays a massive role in the perceived differences in the videos of flight paths?

2: Can you admit to yourself, after considering the analysis of the two shots (which according to yourself are different because the object appears in one and not in the other) that the 'object' in the first video doesn't appear in the second because the second shot starts at the point at which the 'object' dissappears behind the North Tower?

3: Have you accepted that comparing a shot of 13 seconds with one of 4 seconds (as in 9/11 Chameleon) and completely different perspectives is not a legitimately or 'scientifically' sound method of proving that two shots are different and therefore fake?

4: Have you considered that if the 'evidence' which is at the core of tvf/npt (i.e. plane slicing into a building, little wreckage of a plane found, media employees central to the reporting of the event, eyewitnesses saying they didn't see a plane, etc) can be observed in a 'real' plane crash event, (see 2002 pirelli plane crash in Milan) that then weakens the claims that that core evidence proves tvf/npt?

5: If the many video-editing software moguls that you worship (Shack, Genghis wotsit etc) continue to compare clips of different lengths and perspectives, does that fact in itself inherantly mean that there will fundamentally be differences in the videos of flight paths?

Please answer the questions jfk. People are watching and awaiting your answers. Your reputation, integrity and intelligence hang upon your readiness to engage in the counter-evidence and incorporate it into your mind-set.

Can you prove to us that you are not a relentless limpet shill?

Can you prove to us that you are not a npt cult-following sheeple?

_________________
For the TV fakery people.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jfk
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 246

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
1: Do you accept, after watching the video at the top of this thread, that perspective plays a massive role in the perceived differences in the videos of flight paths?

2: Can you admit to yourself, after considering the analysis of the two shots (which according to yourself are different because the object appears in one and not in the other) that the 'object' in the first video doesn't appear in the second because the second shot starts at the point at which the 'object' dissappears behind the North Tower?

3: Have you accepted that comparing a shot of 13 seconds with one of 4 seconds (as in 9/11 Chameleon) and completely different perspectives is not a legitimately or 'scientifically' sound method of proving that two shots are different and therefore fake?

4: Have you considered that if the 'evidence' which is at the core of tvf/npt (i.e. plane slicing into a building, little wreckage of a plane found, media employees central to the reporting of the event, eyewitnesses saying they didn't see a plane, etc) can be observed in a 'real' plane crash event, (see 2002 pirelli plane crash in Milan) that then weakens the claims that that core evidence proves tvf/npt?

5: If the many video-editing software moguls that you worship (Shack, Genghis wotsit etc) continue to compare clips of different lengths and perspectives, does that fact in itself inherantly mean that there will fundamentally be differences in the videos of flight paths?


lee, i agree with you about the different time periods of the video's, i am still not convinced that the 'object' is a boeing.

to say that there are different viewing angles/perspectives in the last vid i posted, when they are blatantly the same is something i do not agree with.

even if the angles are not the same, why is there NO BACKGROUND in one of them!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony - when you get a mo - could you change jfk's tag to 'relentless, time wasting, half-wit shill'?

In the interests of accuracy only.

And who knows?
It may act as a deterrent though given the rock-botttom mental processes amply illustrated it may not work on jfk, but perhaps it may to others.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group