NBC Reports Explosion in South Tower. (What? No Plane?)

[CB_Brooklyn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLW6XLNMoH0

[marky 54]

omg! please stop with the disinfo!

the plane hit the oppisite side(which can be gauged by the flying debris in other videos). the smoke if blocking the horizon. its not enough to say there was no plane there is every reason to believe there could well of been a plane, because of the two things ive just pointed out in a few seconds of watching it.

THINK! if i put my hands on my face does that mean i dont have a face?

[CB_Brooklyn]

omg! please stop with the disinfo!

the plane hit the oppisite side(which can be gauged by the flying debris in other videos). the smoke if blocking the horizon. its not enough to say there was no plane there is every reason to believe there could well of been a plane, because of the two things ive just pointed out in a few seconds of watching it.

THINK! if i put my hands on my face does that mean i dont have a face?

I think you're just scared to see TV-Fakery fact.


btw, you're wrong. Your "plane" should have been visible.

[Fallious]

btw, you're wrong. Your "plane" should have been visible.

Ah, so you must know where he was standing to make this claim! Show us the relevant evidence which proves he was standing in one of the areas where the plane would have been visible from.

If you don't present this evidence then i'll have to assume you are lying.

[Veronica]

If you don't present this evidence then i'll have to assume you are lying.

OMYGOD! Fallious will "have to assume you are lying!"

[Disinfo Agent Tactics: 'Appeal to authority', 'Instant denial', 'Won't accept evidence of own eyes', etc. etc. etc. 'Super Poster' = works hard at being a Disinfo Agent]

It doesn't matter which side ... there is no plane on either side ... because this was 'one that got away from Camera Planet's CGI insertions'.

(Get ready for "the plane has been airbrushed out" ... not easy to say with that video which includes moving river traffic, but no doubt was thought about)

There are others, e.g. here: http://www.veronicachapman.com/expkit/Experiment.htm

Where is your original 9/11 Research, Fallious? You know, the research that PROVES a plane? That proves that it's not YOU who are doing all the 'lying'? Link please. (Same goes for you, marky 54 ... where's your cast iron research solidly proving a plane? Link please. Well ... you need to PROVE something before believing it ... don't you? Don't you? You see, all the South Tower 'hit' videos I've looked at CLOSELY - by that I mean frame-by-frame - show a 'cartoon', show no impact hole until the 'cartoon' is right inside the building, etc. So I'm looking for one that shows a real plane, including 'what it would do to a steel-framed high-rise as it impacted'. Surely you must have researched at least one?)

[Andrew Johnson]

We can safely say SOMEONE is faking video clips.... the questions is who.... good 'ere init?

[Veronica]

Yes Andrew, SOMEONE did the faking.

The name was 'Camera Planet', as you very well know.

[Fallious]

If you don't present this evidence then i'll have to assume you are lying.

OMYGOD! Fallious will "have to assume you are lying!"

He made a statement, i'm asking for proof. If he doesn't have proof then his statement is a lie, it's not complicated. Interesting how you pop up out of the blue when one of your people is caught in a lie.

[Disinfo Agent Tactics: 'Appeal to authority', 'Instant denial', 'Won't accept evidence of own eyes', etc. etc. etc. 'Super Poster' = works hard at being a Disinfo Agent]

Which part of this applies to me? I asked for evidence, haven't appealed to authority, haven't instantly denied anything. However, if we look at your post it's a different story...

It doesn't matter which side ... there is no plane on either side

Instant Denial? Check.

because this was 'one that got away from Camera Planet's CGI insertions'.

Won't accept evidence with own eyes? Check

That's two out of three in one post Veronica. I guess this is a veiled admission of your own guilt? Duly noted.

Where is your original 9/11 Research, Fallious? You know, the research that PROVES a plane? That proves that it's not YOU who are doing all the 'lying'? Link please.

I guess you missed the link to my own website with just such research? It's in my signature, so I guess tricky to find.

For the record, I work in computer animation and have done lots of work with compositing and encoding. Nothing about the plane impact videos surprises me or looks anything but exactly what I would expect.

How you expect to see any kind of impact damage in the few frames available is beyond me, considering the tower walls themselves turn out as big grey boxes, when they were actually highly contrasting dark and light stripes.

Thanks for your contribution Veronica. I hope you'll confront these issues, rather than snipe and run as is traditional for you.

[marky 54]

what is hard to understand the plane approached from the blind side, get a brain! the debris seen flying out the building come towards the screen.

now watch anyother clips where you see debris and you'll see the debris fly out the oppisite side to where the plane hit!.

[James C]

I'd also like to see the proof that the plane should have been visible in that shot.

Come on, let's see it. Just saying it should have been is not good enough.

[andrewwatson]

There are plenty of videos from this side of the Towers . All show the plane approaching from the right ( South -West).

Here is one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLsH_bhh8Y


Interestingly, here is one that also shows no plane:


http://www.youtube.com/v/Pw9XDucQ5jA

[scubadiver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLW6XLNMoH0

So how does it compare to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rsfXeyH2Y

The angle of the plane compared to the smoke, I'd say the "plane" could be visible in the original link. But you will notice the smoke rises quite considerable (compared to the north tower mast) in the 1-1.5 sec before the fireball so the "plane" wouldn't be visible.

I'd say the original link isn't very conclusive (IMO)

[telecasterisation]

Surely, the only thing we can say with any certainty is that we are awash with manipulated footage - no-one can say with any certainty which is genuine or which is doctored.

None of it proves anything either way as there is every probability that elements have been removed or added. We are well past the point where video supports any argument.

[andrewwatson]

Surely, the only thing we can say with any certainty is that we are awash with manipulated footage - no-one can say with any certainty which is genuine or which is doctored.

None of it proves anything either way as there is every probability that elements have been removed or added. We are well past the point where video supports any argument.

Glad to see you supporting tv fakery research.

[Fallious]

Surely, the only thing we can say with any certainty is that we are awash with manipulated footage - no-one can say with any certainty which is genuine or which is doctored.

None of it proves anything either way as there is every probability that elements have been removed or added. We are well past the point where video supports any argument.

Glad to see you supporting tv fakery research.

No. Perhaps you missed what he said. He quite rightly pointed out, that at this stage, video can not be considered evidence of anything, as it may be doctored to show anything.

So we should default to more reliable evidence, which can be independently verified to be free of manipulation by whoever chooses to test it. In the case of NPT this means maths.

[andrewwatson]

Surely, the only thing we can say with any certainty is that we are awash with manipulated footage - no-one can say with any certainty which is genuine or which is doctored.

None of it proves anything either way as there is every probability that elements have been removed or added. We are well past the point where video supports any argument.

Glad to see you supporting tv fakery research.

No. Perhaps you missed what he said. He quite rightly pointed out, that at this stage, video can not be considered evidence of anything, as it may be doctored to show anything.

So we should default to more reliable evidence, which can be independently verified to be free of manipulation by whoever chooses to test it. In the case of NPT this means maths.

You said it.

Take it away, CB Brooklyn!

[Ignatz]

Surely, the only thing we can say with any certainty is that we are awash with manipulated footage - no-one can say with any certainty which is genuine or which is doctored.

None of it proves anything either way as there is every probability that elements have been removed or added. We are well past the point where video supports any argument.

Glad to see you supporting tv fakery research.

No. Perhaps you missed what he said. He quite rightly pointed out, that at this stage, video can not be considered evidence of anything, as it may be doctored to show anything.

So we should default to more reliable evidence, which can be independently verified to be free of manipulation by whoever chooses to test it. In the case of NPT this means maths.

Just chipping in to the melee here ...

Might the monumental implausibility of doctoring every single film and photo taken *on the day*, plus the videos of TV coverage, plus the emails, texts, answerphone recordings, website and blog entries, plus coercing tens of thousands of eye-witnesses into denying what they saw with their own two eyes .... might that not weigh rather heavily against NPT ??

Wouldn't mind a bet that a few low-tech souls even wrote letters about the planes they saw (gasp)

Don't get ratty now, I'm just asking a question.

[Fallious]

Glad to see you supporting tv fakery research.

No. Perhaps you missed what he said. He quite rightly pointed out, that at this stage, video can not be considered evidence of anything, as it may be doctored to show anything.

So we should default to more reliable evidence, which can be independently verified to be free of manipulation by whoever chooses to test it. In the case of NPT this means maths.

Just chipping in to the melee here ...

Might the monumental implausibility of doctoring every single film and photo taken *on the day*, plus the videos of TV coverage, plus the emails, texts, answerphone recordings, website and blog entries, plus coercing tens of thousands of eye-witnesses into denying what they saw with their own two eyes .... might that not weigh rather heavily against NPT ??

Wouldn't mind a bet that a few low-tech souls even wrote letters about the planes they saw (gasp)

Don't get ratty now, I'm just asking a question.

Oh, you'll get no disagreement from me. I've just come to realise in my time arguing against NPT's that the overwhelming weight of evidence for planes is not part of their consideration. Better just to hit them where it hurts and ask for mathematical proof, which so far they seem strangely incapable of supplying.

[Headhunter]

Just chipping in to the melee here ...

Might the monumental implausibility of doctoring every single film and photo taken *on the day*, plus the videos of TV coverage, plus the emails, texts, answerphone recordings, website and blog entries, plus coercing tens of thousands of eye-witnesses into denying what they saw with their own two eyes .... might that not weigh rather heavily against NPT ??

Wouldn't mind a bet that a few low-tech souls even wrote letters about the planes they saw (gasp)

Precisely, but nothing moves them from the no plane meme. Once it get's into their head, it's inextricable. No appeal to logic or rational thinking can alter their position on it. I've even seen them posting, and then along comes someone who either saw the plane itself, or personally knows someone who did, and they are of course instantly lablled as "shills" sent by the government. There's no point even arguing with them anymore, but it always saddens me when I see yet another one come springing out of the woodwork.