International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

beachnut 28th February 2020 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12938558)
Full article here.

How they spoofed the “live” shots of flight 175:
  1. Rehearse the handful of perspectives of flight 175 that will be broadcast live.
  2. The fireball will erupt from the south face of the South Tower.
  3. The rehearsed perspectives were from the north face of the North Tower (opposite the fireball).
  4. By design these rehearsed “live” perspectives will fail to capture the crash of the alleged plane.
  5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots.
  6. On the big day: from the same rehearsed perspectives, capture video footage of the fireball that erupted from the south face of the South Tower.
  7. Live television is never live; there is always a broadcast delay to prevent unwanted content from airing. Utilizing the broadcast delay of how ever many seconds were necessary,
  8. overlay the CGI animations onto the live videos of the fireball.
  9. Flatten the video layers of the CGI planes and the live fireball.
  10. Release the merged video layers as “live.”


How they spoofed the “amateur” videos (not live):
  1. Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.
  2. Rehearse each of their perspectives and create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match.
  3. The first fireball erupts from the north face of the North Tower.
  4. 18 minutes until the next fireball.
  5. All the live network broadcasts are capturing videos of the hole in the north face of the North Tower.
  6. Dozens of “amateur” cameras are capturing videos of the south face of the South Tower.
  7. The second fireball erupts, this time from the south face of the South Tower.
  8. The Networks broadcast live videos showing what looks like a plane crashing into the towers; the world is horrified.
  9. Each of the “amateur” photographers edits their respective video, removing what really cut the hole in the South Tower and adding a plane.
  10. The propaganda organs release these videos periodically over the following days, weeks, months and years.

And this is your reality, a fantasy based on hate of the USA, your fellow citizens.

Who is they? Got some names you can round up in your paranoid world of woo.

You failed to prove any video was fake, and failed to prove any of your claims.

Steve 28th February 2020 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 13004506)
way long past the time for yankee451 Steve. He is essentially a doubting Thomas and effectively nothing more than a troll. He is not making any effort at rigor or integrity. He should be ignored. Close the thread.

Corrected.

Sabretooth 28th February 2020 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12938558)
Full article here.

How they spoofed the “live” shots of flight 175:
[snipped]
How they spoofed the “amateur” videos (not live):
[snipped]

You need to calm yourself over here...let's just look at this logically from a technology standpoint, shall we:

CGI video tech your talking about here was in it's infancy in 2000-2001. For example; with the unlimited resources of ILM and Lucasfilm, the thousands of man-hours logged by hundreds of professionals, you still have products that are obviously computer generated. All of this during the time period before, during, and after the time period of 9/11.

Now, for your hypothesis to be true or (at the very least) relevant, we have to consider that the video editing technology that you propose existed prior to 9/11/2001 was at a mastery level that was magnitudes better than the world's best CGI film production outfits.

Now consider, that if thousands of hours of production is needed by hundreds of techs to produce well-crafted (but clearly CGI) video, then surely the ultra-realistic videos produced for 9/11/2001 took several YEARS to put in the can ...suggesting that production started in the 1990's somewhere (if not sooner).

This creates other questions that maybe you could address:
  • When was the script drafted? Finalized?
  • When was casting call? Was the call printed in any known periodicals?
  • When did filming start?
  • When did filming wrap?
  • What film production/editing company was commissioned?
  • What CGI editing software was used/created?
  • With all these hundreds (thousands?) of people committed to writing, scripting, testing, casting, building, filming, editing, printing, etc...how do you surmise that absolutely zero individuals have come forward with evidence of being involved in such a huge and ground-breaking film project?

Looking forward to your insight on these matters.

waypastvne 28th February 2020 11:40 AM

How did they predict the wind wile setting up the CGI. As UA175 approached it was in the shadow of the smoke. Just before impact it came into the sunlight. They would need to know exactly where the smoke would be before they " 5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots."

Leftus 28th February 2020 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003652)
Wow.

So you draw the line at faking your own death? Others, fine, whatever. But your own is too far?

Leftus 28th February 2020 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003840)
Sorry, but I'm not seeing any questions, however irrelevant, that haven't been answered. Perhaps you can compile a list.

With zero practical knowledge, or any specific knowledge, how do you know how a missile would perform?

bknight 28th February 2020 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 13004855)
How did they predict the wind wile setting up the CGI. As UA175 approached it was in the shadow of the smoke. Just before impact it came into the sunlight. They would need to know exactly where the smoke would be before they " 5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots."

You actually expect him to explain his fantasy in detail? LOL

BStrong 28th February 2020 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003808)
Your questions (most of which were irrelevant and didn't address the physical evidence about which this thread is based) have been answered ad nausea. Scroll back.

I see we can add Latin fluency as another area of your (non) expertise.

bknight 28th February 2020 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 13004891)
I see we can add Latin fluency as another area of your (non) expertise.

Good catch. ;)

Axxman300 28th February 2020 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 13004891)
I see we can add Latin fluency as another area of your (non) expertise.

Careful or he'll issue an alltomato.:boxedin:

StillSleepy 28th February 2020 06:59 PM

Or worse, taunt us a second time.

smartcooky 28th February 2020 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 13004752)
Now, for your hypothesis to be true or (at the very least) relevant, we have to consider that the video editing technology that you propose existed prior to 9/11/2001 was at a mastery level that was magnitudes better than the world's best CGI film production outfits.

Now consider, that if thousands of hours of production is needed by hundreds of techs to produce well-crafted (but clearly CGI) video, then surely the ultra-realistic videos produced for 9/11/2001 took several YEARS to put in the can ...suggesting that production started in the 1990's somewhere (if not sooner).

Even of you stick with contemporaneous sci-fi films, with absolute state-of-the-art CGI for that time..

Supernova (2000)
Red Planet (2000)
Pitch Black (2000)
Sunshine (2000)

The CGI in these movies is obvious.

Even in the movie Sully, which was made in 2015 - way greater state of the art CGI, you can still tell its CGI.

Athyrio 28th February 2020 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003780)
For the record, the skeptics have had their say, but they are at a loss for words. Anyone can read the thread for themselves.

Beginning to sound like a 1916 Cumberland College football coach in a post-game interview who just got beat by a score of 222-0.

Regnad Kcin 28th February 2020 08:49 PM

Yeah?! Well, did those movies have a television shoved in their faces? Huh, did they?!?!

Athyrio 28th February 2020 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939519)
Why, look at that. Still moderated. The truth hurts.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=271571


The truth hurts? I link to it and find your initial videos “not found”.

Did the truth hurt you or something?

bruto 28th February 2020 10:51 PM

I think, though, that our yankee friend has hit upon a pretty useful technique for arguing, though I suspect he has been influenced by the national news of late: just say something so stupid that people are dumfounded, and then run around dancing and say "see, see, they couldn't find an answer!"

Yankee, there really is a difference between awestruck and gobsmacked.

beachnut 1st March 2020 08:00 AM

yankee451 failed to prove videos were faked, never will

yankee451 analysis failed to include science, no clue why he can't succeed

https://i.imgflip.com/3n5i10.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/3n5gzs.jpg

Cosmic Yak 1st March 2020 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13004083)
How many times would you like me to answer these same questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13004086)
You haven't answered them yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13004088)
Cosmic Yak will have his own answer, but I would like to see you answer them once.

CY was able to quickly link to his list of questions. Can you provide a similar link to your list of answers?

Nice to see I'm not the only one who appears to have missed yankee451's answers to my numerous, and oft-repeated, questions.
As StillSleepy and Steve have said, all you need to do is answer them once. Do please link to the answers you claim to have already given.
I remain as unfoundedly optimistic as ever. :D
(Thanks, SmartCooky for the John Cleese quote. I do wish he would stop copying me. I get little enough credit for my humble attempts at wit here as it is, without having him come and steal my thunder).

smartcooky 1st March 2020 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13005429)
I think, though, that our yankee friend has hit upon a pretty useful technique for arguing, though I suspect he has been influenced by the national news of late: just say something so stupid that people are dumfounded, and then run around dancing and say "see, see, they couldn't find an answer!"

Yankee, there really is a difference between awestruck and gobsmacked.

"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. A philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." Bertolt Brecht

(IIRC, someone on this forum has this in their signature)

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 09:54 AM

Well if you want to peddle a conspiracy theory, you have to learn how to make yourself look large and intimidating when cornered and scurry off in the confusion, like a frilled lizard. Except a frilled lizard has a backbone.

Allen773 2nd March 2020 12:41 PM

Who’s “They” in the thread title?

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 01:03 PM

Hasn't really been stated explicitly, in direct context it's agencies like the CIA, which he considers to be under the control of a vague Global Power StructureTM that controls the government.

To be fair, I wouldn't put it past the GPS to take over the world, they're masters of misdirection. After their recent period of explosive growth around the world they have driven the road atlas to near extinction and seem to only be limited by access to their favored prey, electricity and lost tourists.

Leftus 2nd March 2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen773 (Post 13007507)
Who’s “They” in the thread title?

Them. Same organization, different department.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

yankee451 2nd March 2020 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 13004855)
How did they predict the wind wile setting up the CGI. As UA175 approached it was in the shadow of the smoke. Just before impact it came into the sunlight. They would need to know exactly where the smoke would be before they " 5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots."

The wind had nothing to do with the CGI.

smartcooky 2nd March 2020 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007717)
The wind had nothing to do with the CGI.

But the smoke would have to be taken into account, and the direction the smoke is blown in is determined by the direction of __________ (insert correct answer here)

Jack by the hedge 2nd March 2020 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007717)
The wind had nothing to do with the CGI.

That's pretty weak. The wind direction on the day determined the smoke direction. The smoke cast a shadow. The CGI plane passed through the real shadow. How did they generate and prerecord that, these supercompetent villains who leave nothing to chance?

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13007758)
But the smoke would have to be taken into account, and the direction the smoke is blown in is determined by the direction of _Yankee's talking_.

We called him Gusty at the Academy.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:06 PM

Also, why wouldn't wind matter if you're trying to make decent CGI?

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13007758)
But the smoke would have to be taken into account, and the direction the smoke is blown in is determined by the direction of __________ (insert correct answer here)


No it wouldn't. The smoke was part of the video upon which the CGI jet was layered. This is explained in the OP.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen773 (Post 13007507)
Who’s “They” in the thread title?

You'll figure it out.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007334)
Well if you want to peddle a conspiracy theory, you have to learn how to make yourself look large and intimidating when cornered and scurry off in the confusion, like a frilled lizard. Except a frilled lizard has a backbone.

Or, after already gutting his foe, the victor finds no joy in kicking its carcass.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:15 PM

I'm sure the CGI smoke smelled just like real smoke too.

curious cat 2nd March 2020 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007787)
No it wouldn't. The smoke was part of the video upon which the CGI jet was layered. This is explained in the OP.

And, by a pure coincidence the direction matches the records of the BOM.
Ops, I forgot, they are in it too :-).

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007781)
We called him Gusty at the Academy.

Do you hear voices too, or is that just the wind roaring between your ears?

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007797)
I'm sure the CGI smoke smelled just like real smoke too.

You aren't seeing clearly. Maybe it's the smoke in your eyes.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 13007799)
And, by a pure coincidence the direction matches the records of the BOM.
Ops, I forgot, they are in it too :-).

Your intellect give me chills. No wait, that's my skin crawling.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:26 PM

Interesting how that smoke persisted into the next day, too.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:27 PM

A few months, in fact.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007811)
Interesting how that smoke persisted into the next day, too.

Not really all that interesting if you think about it. A challenge, for some.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007813)
A few months, in fact.

Rub a couple pieces of gray matter together, if you can find them.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.