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)

Axxman300 18th January 2020 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12958798)
Yes we have, thanks for the free comedy!

https://media.giphy.com/media/VDFoGg3JN1N4s/giphy.gif

Again it's simple: He's either a dedicated troll or mentally ill.

This is not about misunderstanding science this is something else. His claims are:

No planes truck the buildings.
Missiles struck the buildings.
CD was used to finish the job.
The Twin Towers were - in fact - empty of people.
There are no victims of the attacks of 9/11/2001.
All of the footage of the planes striking the towers is fake.
All of the eye-witness testimony are lies.
Smoke machines at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

This is not a guy arguing about how far up the chain of the Saudi Royal Family the AQ funding angle goes, this is not remote controlled commercial jets, this is not LIHOP, this is not dancing Israelis. This is the single dumbest 911-CT ever foisted on the internet, and in a way that's an achievement on its own. Even the 911-Truth message boards have banned him because he makes them look crazy(er).

But it's the only thread in town and there are many smart people (not Steve) posting good explanations here so it's not a complete waste of time.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958369)
It doesn't take a video production expert to figure it out. I am not an expert at anything. I have never claimed otherwise. But it isn't about me, is it? If, as the evidence indicates, missiles were launched, then there are very few ways to have masked them on "live" television. Only one that I can tell.

There is zero evidence missiles were launched.

Quote:

The fact that none of you will address the merits of my argument,
This discussion thread of considerable length puts the lie to that “fact.”

Quote:

nor explain how the evidence doesn't support my conclusion as well as it supports yours, is just more validation that I'm on the right track. It also is an indication that "the truth" is not high on the priority list of the so called Skeptics.
Bluster and bluff are no substitutes for a sound hypothesis that can be analyzed, critiqued, and thereafter refined or discarded.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958375)
Agreed. How does that engine, which was likely planted by operatives dressed as police (or corrupt law enforcement themselves), change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles?

Please provide evidence of these “operatives.” How many were there? What was their base of operations? Who planned the planting? How was it funded? Is there testimony from any witnesses to the planting?

Quote:

Wouldn't the most likely suspects have thought ahead about planting evidence? Or does that only happen in the movies?
The “most” likely suspects were only concerned about basic flight training, purchasing boxcutters, and, apparently, visiting a strip club shortly before the day of their planned hijacking.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958383)
Please try to address that awesomeness by the way. Until you can explain how the evidence does not support my conclusions, and can provide a better explanation for it, I win. All your gyrations, ad hominems, false dichotomies, red herrings, appeals to authority, and whatever other excuses you can come up with, won't change that.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958447)
It was a layer mask that was hanging like a curtain over the actual scene. Whatever they showed us on that layer mask, was what they intended for us to see. As explained in the OP, and numerous times already, none of the videos of the crash of flight 175 as it slid like butter into the south face of the south tower were released live. ALL were released later, after the propagandists had enough time to edit out whatever really did happen, and edit in a plane. They added those flashes purposefully, very likely to lead truth seekers astray. By adding anomalies like that into the script of the event they could control the opposition before it began. It was a layer mask. They drew-on the flashes to confuse you. Move on.

Lots of speculation, zero proof.

Quote:

Before they can “splice and dice” looped footage, they must first capture the footage. By not broadcasting the crash live it bought time to capture the footage of what actually cut the holes in the towers, to edit it out and then edit-in a plane. This edited version was then released as “amateur” footage which depicts a mostly hollow aluminum jet sliding like butter into a steel skyscraper.
What we think of as “live” television is not live. There is always a broadcast delay of as many seconds as are required for someone to be able to react in time to cut to a commercial. In this way the networks prevent unwanted content from airing.
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the...-of-the-world/
Lots, and zero.

And BTW, broadcast delay is not for someone to “be able to react in time to cut to a commercial.” While it’s possible for a technician to take control, network and local breaks are automated.

Also, will you continue to describe the jets as “mostly hollow,” slyly (not really) attempting to characterize them as somehow flimsy and therefore unable to penetrate the buildings (leaving aside the meddlesome issue of their impacting at several hundreds of miles per hour)?

Quote:

To accomplish this feat they had to use tripods to first capture footage of the undamaged towers, from the exact same location as they would capture the fireball. They used the footage of the undamaged tower as their “mask layer,” like a curtain to hang in front of the live footage of the real tower. Once the real footage was hidden behind the mask layer curtain, the holes in the tower could be cut, and only when that was accomplished could the mask layer be removed, exposing the damage. The plane was just another layer on top of the mask layer, both of which, the “undamaged tower” layer and the “plane” layer, were hanging in front of the real layer, giving the audience something to look at while the real hole was being cut. After the plane layer melted into the undamaged tower layer (accompanied by drawn-on smoke), they faded away the layer of the undamaged tower, to expose the live footage of the real tower behind it. From that point forward, it was a real-time play. The plane didn’t crumple and explode on impact because it was nearly impossible to create a convincing 3D animation that could be shown from multiple angles; they were limited to using what 2D means they had, and that was layer masking.https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/
Lots and lots. And zero times zero is..

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958515)
You do understand what a circular argument is, right? The story of thousands of witnesses to an event that didn't occur, can only mean one thing; there were not thousands of witnesses.

Correct. As I explained upthread, it was likely no less than one million.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958554)
The impact evidence proves the videos were faked. Using them as proof of something is a circular argument.

No. Proof of video fakery proves a video has been faked.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958568)
Once again, dear reader, the Television trumps common sense, as well as the physical evidence. So strong is the mind control tool called Television.

Says the chap who keeps referring to a grainy, two-dimensional, static snapshot of a dynamic event.

abaddon 18th January 2020 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12958886)
<snip for brevity>

Yankee's problem is that he starts with the conclusion he wants and works backwards to force the evidence fit that predetermined conclusion. In consequence, he must make increasingly bizarre claims.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958686)
Low hanging fruit is fun.:thumbsup:

It’s taken me back to when this stuff was fresh, and no less silly.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958715)
30 pages later, I must have missed your explanation. The floor is yours.

Shifting the burden of proof.

beachnut 18th January 2020 11:35 PM

mind control TV... who has a TV?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958568)
Once again, dear reader, the Television trumps common sense, as well as the physical evidence. So strong is the mind control tool called Television.

What reader? You sound like trump with the toilet flushing 10 to 15 times. You sound like trump and his quixotic cancer causing windmill claim.

Darn, you wasted a post with how you think television is mind control. Only weak minds fall for the mind control TV stuff... you need help recovering from the mind control?

I thought the missiles was silly, but now we have mind control TV in the fantasy mix of woo

It appears you are in some self induced mind control, unable to understand what is evidence, and what is fantasy.

https://911crashtest.org/greetings-from-steve-deak/
When is the comet coming to save you from the reality of earth? You look like the hale bopp comet guru of woo.

Get help with physics and use reality based arguments for stopping wars, stop the lies. Get thee to a physics teacher NOW. Please, for the sake of all.

curious cat 19th January 2020 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12958942)
What reader? You sound like trump with the toilet flushing 10 to 15 times. You sound like trump and his quixotic cancer causing windmill claim.

Darn, you wasted a post with how you think television is mind control. Only weak minds fall for the mind control TV stuff... you need help recovering from the mind control?

I thought the missiles was silly, but now we have mind control TV in the fantasy mix of woo

It appears you are in some self induced mind control, unable to understand what is evidence, and what is fantasy.

https://911crashtest.org/greetings-from-steve-deak/
When is the comet coming to save you from the reality of earth? You look like the hale bopp comet guru of woo.

Get help with physics and use reality based arguments for stopping wars, stop the lies. Get thee to a physics teacher NOW. Please, for the sake of all.

Thanks for the link, Beachnut. Now I finally know how Steve looks like and how old he is! Based on his posts I thought he is 8 years old - and retarded...

Cosmic Yak 19th January 2020 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958501)
You shouldn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451
Nobody should take my word for anything; I urge everyone to scrutinize my research, and conclusions, carefully, and I wish the leaders of the truth movement would say the same.*


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958394)
Golly. You're citing Naudet. Still.

I can see this is a waste of time.

Jules Naudet's First Plane Shot Was Staged

More Proof the Naudet Video was Staged

I read the second link, and all it is, is you saying the video was faked. There is no research, and no evidence. You simply claim the people in the video are actors. That's it. Your entire premise is based on us taking your word for it. Without even an attempt at evidence, there is no reason to accept your assertion.

Do you have any actual evidence, beyond a blurred photo you say was faked anyway?
Where, for example, do you think the missiles were launched from, and how many were there? Can you prove this?

JSanderO 19th January 2020 04:05 AM

Problem with discussing or "debating" especially with truthers and people with alternative beliefs is that of stipulating to the facts of the matter. It's obvious that with Steve he refuses to stipulate of acknowledge what almost everyone accepts and considers to be facts.

Almost all facts are dismissed by substituting them with the notion that everything we "saw" was an illusion and fake production... like watching a Hollywood film which we "accept" as fiction even though it seems real, look real and so on. People understand that this is done for entertainment. There are cases were "re enactments" are produced to mimic real events for broadcast etc.

Rational people understand intuitively what is real and what is fiction. And usually not claims of real are made for fiction.

What is bizarre in this case is that Steve is claiming that what is presented as real, appears to be real... is simply fiction... no different from all the other produced "shows" we see in the media. But this show is so complex and vast it defies credulity. What Steve is telling us to believe is that we live in a Truman Show. He believes that since we can produce fiction that looks real... that is what was done on 9/11.

This is a sign of some type of delusion.

One needs to explain who, why and how this reality show was created. Steve has failed on all three.

++++

A frequent point made by truthers over the years was the "cui bono" one. The perpetrators were the ones who benefited most and that is usually pinned on the MIC, the hawks, the deep state.... which of course uses "Islamic militants" as the scapegoat.

And the "proof" offered? A supposed flaw in their illusion... materials that defy mechanics and physics... disciplines he has no expertise in (as many don't). Many here have refuted his false claims, but he stubbornly clings to his fantasy.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time"

Not fooling members of this forum.

curious cat 19th January 2020 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12959015)
Problem with discussing or "debating" especially with truthers and people with alternative beliefs is that of stipulating to the facts of the matter. It's obvious that with Steve he refuses to stipulate of acknowledge what almost everyone accepts and considers to be facts.

Almost all facts are dismissed by substituting them with the notion that everything we "saw" was an illusion and fake production... like watching a Hollywood film which we "accept" as fiction even though it seems real, look real and so on. People understand that this is done for entertainment. There are cases were "re enactments" are produced to mimic real events for broadcast etc.

Rational people understand intuitively what is real and what is fiction. And usually not claims of real are made for fiction.

What is bizarre in this case is that Steve is claiming that what is presented as real, appears to be real... is simply fiction... no different from all the other produced "shows" we see in the media. But this show is so complex and vast it defies credulity. What Steve is telling us to believe is that we live in a Truman Show. He believes that since we can produce fiction that looks real... that is what was done on 9/11.

This is a sign of some type of delusion.

One needs to explain who, why and how this reality show was created. Steve has failed on all three.

++++

A frequent point made by truthers over the years was the "cui bono" one. The perpetrators were the ones who benefited most and that is usually pinned on the MIC, the hawks, the deep state.... which of course uses "Islamic militants" as the scapegoat.

And the "proof" offered? A supposed flaw in their illusion... materials that defy mechanics and physics... disciplines he has no expertise in (as many don't). Many here have refuted his false claims, but he stubbornly clings to his fantasy.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time"

Not fooling members of this forum.

I followed the link to the Steve's site - just of curiosity. As expected, I found it quite entertaining and discovered some clues to Steve's problem there. An especially significant was this one:

"My wife is a big fan of crime scene reconstruction shows, like CSI and NCIS. Although fictional, and usually heavy with government propaganda, these shows demonstrate crime scene reconstruction to the audience."

Well... if somebody is getting his knowledge from shows like this, no wonder he then invents stories fit for SciFi paperback. CSI show is so detached from reality, every real member of this group has to either laugh his head off or throw up every time it is on. But it does seem to have irresistible influence on some people and Steve may be up to something with his TV mind control paranoia :-).

JSanderO 19th January 2020 06:14 AM

One of the more interesting... or perhaps the most interesting thing about 9/11 was "mass psychology"... you can see it in truther behavior/responses and in the public in their lust for revenge and war.

Assuming the Islamist suicide bomber types did the deed and they were mostly Saudis why did we attack Iraq with Shock and Awe? The response and support was knee jerk and irrational. Truthers of course assumed it was a "false flag" by the MIC or deep state... and also left the reservation called rational thinking.

Trumpism is another extreme expression of the loss of critical thinking and mass psychology. Bernays nailed this almost 100 years ago.

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12958977)
I read the second link, and all it is, is you saying the video was faked. There is no research, and no evidence. You simply claim the people in the video are actors. That's it. Your entire premise is based on us taking your word for it. Without even an attempt at evidence, there is no reason to accept your assertion.

Do you have any actual evidence, beyond a blurred photo you say was faked anyway?
Where, for example, do you think the missiles were launched from, and how many were there? Can you prove this?

Sure there is. Naudet was centered on the WTC for hundreds of frames prior to his turning around to capture the "gas leak" sequence. This means he was able to capture footage of the undamaged towers from the same place as he would capture the fireball. His being centered on the WTC prior to the "impact" of flight 11 is proof he was using a tripod, which he claims he wasn't using.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x648.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x578.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x581.png

Last frame before impact:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x576.png

He was using a tripod. It was staged. This is proof of foreknowledge. It is also more evidence in support of my conclusions, since Naudet's actions fit the explanation I provided perfectly.

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958839)
https://media.giphy.com/media/VDFoGg3JN1N4s/giphy.gif

Again it's simple: He's either a dedicated troll or mentally ill.

This is not about misunderstanding science this is something else. His claims are:

No planes truck the buildings.
Missiles struck the buildings.
CD was used to finish the job.
The Twin Towers were - in fact - empty of people.
There are no victims of the attacks of 9/11/2001.
All of the footage of the planes striking the towers is fake.
All of the eye-witness testimony are lies.
Smoke machines at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

This is not a guy arguing about how far up the chain of the Saudi Royal Family the AQ funding angle goes, this is not remote controlled commercial jets, this is not LIHOP, this is not dancing Israelis. This is the single dumbest 911-CT ever foisted on the internet, and in a way that's an achievement on its own. Even the 911-Truth message boards have banned him because he makes them look crazy(er).

But it's the only thread in town and there are many smart people (not Steve) posting good explanations here so it's not a complete waste of time.


The bigger the lie, the easier it is for gullible people to believe.

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12959015)
Problem with discussing or "debating" especially with truthers and people with alternative beliefs is that of stipulating to the facts of the matter. It's obvious that with Steve he refuses to stipulate of acknowledge what almost everyone accepts and considers to be facts.

Bandwagon.

Following the crowd doesn't make the crowd right.

These are the facts:

Something small but not very dense struck at the far left. As it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more dense.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12959044)
I followed the link to the Steve's site - just of curiosity. As expected, I found it quite entertaining and discovered some clues to Steve's problem there. An especially significant was this one:

"My wife is a big fan of crime scene reconstruction shows, like CSI and NCIS. Although fictional, and usually heavy with government propaganda, these shows demonstrate crime scene reconstruction to the audience."

Well... if somebody is getting his knowledge from shows like this, no wonder he then invents stories fit for SciFi paperback. CSI show is so detached from reality, every real member of this group has to either laugh his head off or throw up every time it is on. But it does seem to have irresistible influence on some people and Steve may be up to something with his TV mind control paranoia :-).


The full paragraph, here:

Quote:

My wife is a big fan of crime scene reconstruction shows, like CSI and NCIS. Although fictional, and usually heavy with government propaganda, these shows demonstrate crime scene reconstruction to the audience. Often, even the tiniest clues can change the whole course of the make-believe investigation. In the real world, students of forensic sciences are taught that crime scene reconstruction is used to determine the actual course of a crime by limiting the possibilities that resulted in the crime scene, or the physical evidence as encountered.
And the very next paragraph:

Quote:

According to the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction, the definition of crime scene reconstruction is:

“the use of scientific methods, physical evidence, deductive reasoning and their interrelationships to gain explicit knowledge of the series of events that surround the commission of a crime”.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Reading is FUNdamental.

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:51 AM

So how many series of events occurred that resulted in the physical evidence as found?

One.

How many "right answers" does that make?

One.

How many truthers started at the beginning by examining the crime scene?

One

How many Skeptics started there?

Zero

yankee451 19th January 2020 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12958886)
Lots of speculation, zero proof.

You mean other than the physical evidence, which negates the official story, and supports my conclusion perfectly.

yankee451 19th January 2020 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12958892)
No. Proof of video fakery proves a video has been faked.

The evidence you're avoiding proves all the videos of the alleged plane crashes were faked.

Regnad Kcin 19th January 2020 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959210)
You mean other than the physical evidence, which negates the official story, and supports my conclusion perfectly.

I wrote what I “mean.” Do not presume otherwise.

Regnad Kcin 19th January 2020 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959213)
The evidence you're avoiding proves all the videos of the alleged plane crashes were faked.

I can see you apparently don’t understand what it means to make a positive claim.

Wolrab 19th January 2020 10:40 AM

Why is anybody even responding to this nonsense? The poster is obviously either a poe or mentally ill. You will never persuade him with evidence or even get him to accept reality. Why he hasn't been banned for spamming this site is ridiculous.

beachnut 19th January 2020 11:06 AM

FAILED fake video claims FAIL
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab (Post 12959231)
Why is anybody even responding to this nonsense? The poster is obviously either a poe or mentally ill. You will never persuade him with evidence or even get him to accept reality. Why he hasn't been banned for spamming this site is ridiculous.

typing practice?

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AECNqm4V2o



Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959213)
The evidence you're avoiding proves all the videos of the alleged plane crashes were faked.

you got no evidence - you don't have a clue what evidence is -

MattNelson 19th January 2020 11:42 AM

Photographers captured the plane from as far as 14 miles, using film with negatives that Steve knows how to fake, I guess.

Cumins got 2 shots of the 2nd plane from Montclair, NJ. One was on the cover of People Magazine. Others got 2 shots of the plane, too. Because they saw it coming. Duh.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_...obert_A_Cumins

Axxman300 19th January 2020 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab (Post 12959231)
Why is anybody even responding to this nonsense? The poster is obviously either a poe or mentally ill. You will never persuade him with evidence or even get him to accept reality. Why he hasn't been banned for spamming this site is ridiculous.

Target practice.

bknight 19th January 2020 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959173)
Sure there is. Naudet was centered on the WTC for hundreds of frames prior to his turning around to capture the "gas leak" sequence. This means he was able to capture footage of the undamaged towers from the same place as he would capture the fireball. His being centered on the WTC prior to the "impact" of flight 11 is proof he was using a tripod, which he claims he wasn't using.

You lie as usual editing the video to make your claim reasonable, but if anyone looks at his video, then you see the lie he was filming tow FD individuals and PANNED to shoot the towers. Even in the video, the jet can be seen briefly just prior to impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY

Quote:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x648.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x578.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x581.png

Last frame before impact:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x576.png

He was using a tripod. It was staged. This is proof of foreknowledge. It is also more evidence in support of my conclusions, since Naudet's actions fit the explanation I provided perfectly.
You continue to lie, yes the brothers were there filming a test not using a tripod, when they heard the jet flying overhead and turned to film the impact. Naudet's actions do not fit your explanation.
Why didn't your respond?
Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12958029)
Did I say that I saw the impact? No I said the airplane, not CGI as it was live, approach the WTC complex and disappear BEHIND WTC 1 and then a fireball erupts out of WTC 2,
Now answer the other questions what happened to the plane when it disappeared behind WTC 1? It never appeared again. And it wasn't as you say CGI as it was live. Go rethink your weak answers.

"m" word?


yankee451 19th January 2020 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12959299)
You lie as usual editing the video to make your claim reasonable, but if anyone looks at his video, then you see the lie he was filming tow FD individuals and PANNED to shoot the towers. Even in the video, the jet can be seen briefly just prior to impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY



You continue to lie, yes the brothers were there filming a test not using a tripod, when they heard the jet flying overhead and turned to film the impact. Naudet's actions do not fit your explanation.
Why didn't your respond?

The truth hurts. Badly.

You're wrong. Surely you own the DVD and can check for yourself.

yankee451 19th January 2020 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12959296)
Target practice.

Your aim is terrible.

Axxman300 19th January 2020 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959173)
Sure there is. Naudet was centered on the WTC for hundreds of frames prior to his turning around to capture the "gas leak" sequence. This means he was able to capture footage of the undamaged towers from the same place as he would capture the fireball. His being centered on the WTC prior to the "impact" of flight 11 is proof he was using a tripod, which he claims he wasn't using.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x648.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x578.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x581.png

Last frame before impact:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x576.png

He was using a tripod. It was staged. This is proof of foreknowledge. It is also more evidence in support of my conclusions, since Naudet's actions fit the explanation I provided perfectly.

We get you, Steve. You've never been good at anything in your life and you're angry about it.

Naudet was a professional cameraman who was out shooting B-Roll footage of a reported gas leak to get some practice time in with his camera. His camera had image stabilization built in to provide a smooth image. All his footage proves is that he was an experienced cameraman with a quality camera. He shot the footage like any foreigner in NYV would by framing the fire fighters against the tall buildings of the city to give context of scale and setting. Domestic NYC cinematographers tend to focus on people and life on the streets, which we'd see in footage shot later that day.

If this is the best you have then you need to understand you're actually going backward and considering you've started from zero evidence you've gone from a clown nose to a clown nose that honks.

Axxman300 19th January 2020 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959304)
Your aim is terrible.

Nothing to shoot at.

yankee451 19th January 2020 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12959294)
Photographers captured the plane from as far as 14 miles, using film with negatives that Steve knows how to fake, I guess.

Cumins got 2 shots of the 2nd plane from Montclair, NJ. One was on the cover of People Magazine. Others got 2 shots of the plane, too. Because they saw it coming. Duh.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_...obert_A_Cumins

And? You can trot out all the amateur videos you like. They don't change the damage evidence that proves a plane didn't cut the hole.

bknight 19th January 2020 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959302)
The truth hurts. Badly.

You're wrong. Surely you own the DVD and can check for yourself.

Are you calling me a liar?

yankee451 19th January 2020 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12959306)
We get you, Steve. You've never been good at anything in your life and you're angry about it.

Naudet was a professional cameraman who was out shooting B-Roll footage of a reported gas leak to get some practice time in with his camera. His camera had image stabilization built in to provide a smooth image. All his footage proves is that he was an experienced cameraman with a quality camera. He shot the footage like any foreigner in NYV would by framing the fire fighters against the tall buildings of the city to give context of scale and setting. Domestic NYC cinematographers tend to focus on people and life on the streets, which we'd see in footage shot later that day.

If this is the best you have then you need to understand you're actually going backward and considering you've started from zero evidence you've gone from a clown nose to a clown nose that honks.

Brutal. Good luck with that self esteem issue.

Elagabalus 19th January 2020 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959173)
Sure there is. Naudet was centered on the WTC for hundreds of frames prior to his turning around to capture the "gas leak" sequence. This means he was able to capture footage of the undamaged towers from the same place as he would capture the fireball. His being centered on the WTC prior to the "impact" of flight 11 is proof he was using a tripod, which he claims he wasn't using.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x648.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x578.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x581.png

Last frame before impact:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x576.png

He was using a tripod. It was staged. This is proof of foreknowledge. It is also more evidence in support of my conclusions, since Naudet's actions fit the explanation I provided perfectly.


He's clearly not using a tripod. The first pic the camera is at waist level with the firemen then he goes even lower (about ankle height) for the next two pics. The last pic he has the camera at about head height (on his shoulder?) and has panned the camera upward.

And even if he was using a tripod, it wouldn't matter. The camera isn't on lock down, you see. He's still panning around and changing the camera's viewing angle in each shot which rules out your realtime CGI nonsense.

And besides, he said he wasn't using a tripod. Maybe you should start with that. I hope you didn't send him any angry letters demanding him to just tell the truth.

yankee451 19th January 2020 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12959315)
Are you calling me a liar?

What goes around comes around. But no, I said you're wrong.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:02 PM.

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