TV-"fakery" is fucking stupid

[Melchor]

(08-23-2010 02:44 AM)jamesers Wrote:  And I don't appreciate you insulting my Christian faith, especially when it has no bearing on the topic at hand (and I don't care if this is 'Fists of Fury'.)

Yeah, I guess that was over the top. It just seemed since you've been on the tracker heavily for a long time and this is just your 8th post on the forums that you were trolling and that pushes my buttons. As to the comparison being different though, how is a pre-production controlled situation the same as an uncontrolled environment with everyone watching. I think this whole argument is mostly a waste of time anyway. You don't hear people attack no planers by demanding the production of people who saw the side of the building explode sans a plane do they? Funny. I bet such people are harder to produce than those who saw a plane.

[jamesers]

I accept your apology.

"I bet such people are harder to produce than those who saw a plane."

or saw a missile and thought it was a plane. Have you seriously considered that option?

[Melchor]

(08-23-2010 05:10 AM)jamesers Wrote:  I accept your apology.

"I bet such people are harder to produce than those who saw a plane."

or saw a missile and thought it was a plane. Have you seriously considered that option?

Honestly, I don't see the upside in faking planes. The Pentagon was a site that would be fairly easy to control and Shanksville was in the middle of nowhere and easy to clean up. The Trade Center complex on the other hand is in the middle of the most populous city in the country and the news coverage was obviously going to attract spectators. Why fake not one but two plane crashes and make the second one occur after enough time had passed for the first plane to be reported attracting onlookers who could then expose the hoax. The risk/reward in such a scenario in no way makes such actions rational (even in the calculating psychotic sense).

[nik]

"Honestly, I don't see the upside in faking planes."

errrr..hmmm...let me think...geee...thats a tough one!! ...um maybe..impossible physics aside..because it would have been quite "hit or miss" risk to place the whole operation on the it otherwise...and maybe because they reaally wanted to demolish the Asbestos laden buildings and use it as a pretext to go to war and thus needed a plausible scenario that the public would buy into hook line and sinker without too much fuss seeing as the public would have required one and wouldn't have been too happy about the towers coming down by design of the govt.and having to breathe in all that poison dust but if it is a terrorist outrage using hijacked planes there wasn't anything that could be done..norad were busy..and wonderfully it has worked?

Seems like the many many many witness testimonies that cite NOT planes from what their own eyes saw don't count for shit because it was "on telly" but one REAL disinfo agent* turning up to further the delusion and keep you neutralised works swell.

ANd i am the cunt that is supposed to have been drinking the fucking Koolaid???? Damn, it is laughable.

*At least one -- you might think on it

[kalimba]

(08-21-2010 07:08 PM)nik Wrote:  this one courtesy of The Washington Post is good and not at all like a computer game simulation:



It's not the 20th century anymore

This did look very CGI...but I found a higher res photo, if you open it in photoshop and adjust the levels it does appear to actually be a photograph after all:

[nik]

oh, that's good, if you are right. Strange that a real war photo would offer more solace than a CGI one.

Nice first post,welcome to the concen forum. Where abouts did you manage to locate the more hi res image? How did you manage to track down such a higher quality version from that single screen shot? You must be using a pretty effective search methodology, please share your tips with this example.thanks and welcome!

[rsol]

this is what happens when you judge a low resolution, compressed image.

[ToddTraf]

I thought this TV fakery was funny in a HG wells kinda way. This is from a while back, but a hacker slipped a nuclear explosion into the morning country-side webcam footage.

[Melchor]

(08-23-2010 10:47 AM)nik Wrote:  "Honestly, I don't see the upside in faking planes."

[followed by a bunch of sarcastic and hostile name calling.]

We have a difference of opinion and you are getting way too emotional about the topic. You're not convincing anyone with that attitude, though. If you're going to continue to hurl unwarranted abuse at me for voicing my opinion because yeti pissed you off, then you can just fuck right off.

[nik]

(08-25-2010 12:11 AM)Melchor Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 10:47 AM)nik Wrote:  "Honestly, I don't see the upside in faking planes."

[followed by a bunch of sarcastic and hostile name calling.]

We have a difference of opinion and you are getting way too emotional about the topic. You're not convincing anyone with that attitude, though. If you're going to continue to hurl unwarranted abuse at me for voicing my opinion because yeti pissed you off, then you can just fuck right off.

thats not the tone it was written in but whateva`

Amazing how an entire board can go ape shit over one video.

My proposal to your bewilderment stands.

I also got a better idea of why Ctrl fled this site today too

but i will keep that one under wraps for sure. thanks for thefuckoff

---

sounds like sage advice

[JFK]

(08-25-2010 01:23 AM)nik Wrote:  Amazing how an entire board can go ape shit over one video.

Isn't it ?

Kinda reminds me of how JREF went apeshit over Loose Change years ago.

Personally I think that no planes at the WTC ( as well as "conventional" suitcase nukes ) is a load of crap therefore I will have to agree to disagree with you on that theory.

[nik]

fair enough, I find it bevond reason that the whole operation would be presumably hinged on their fly boys' skills..too much left to happenstance...unless there was no conspiracy of course..then it would make sense...
unlike some of the banshees wailing on the board are want to insist, I don't subscribe to any one all encompassing theory..I just want the fresh research to be looked at properly..the feasibility of this happening here though with all the synthetic Oestrogen affected hyenas on the prowl suddenly is looking about as low as a 5 times world limbo champion doing a charity event right now, at least you don't paint it all as black or white. And I still think that guy is a bona fide cointelpro agent,planes or not. have fun

[JFK]

(08-25-2010 03:11 AM)nik Wrote:  fair enough, I find it bevond reason that the whole operation would be presumably hinged on their fly boys' skills..too much left to happenstance...unless there was no conspiracy of course..then it would make sense...
unlike some of the banshees wailing on the board are want to insist, I don't subscribe to any one all encompassing theory..I just want the fresh research to be looked at properly..the feasibility of this happening here though with all the sythetic Oestrogen affected hyenas on the prowl suddenly is making it look as low as a 5 times world limbo champ right now, at least you don't paint it all as black or white. And I still think that guy is a bona fide cointelpro agent,planes or not. have fun

I agree with the bolded, and I DO have the system schematics manual ( as well as the aircraft maintainance manual ) for the 757-200 and there are 4 seperate possible data paths for that model to be flown remotely with very little modification to the on board avionics. I am NOT saying that that is what happened, but the possibility is there... and I assume that the 767 is even more advanced in that respect.

The final manuver of the second plane recorded from several angles actually suggests that it was being flown by a computer rather than a live pilot either on the flight deck or in a remote location... in my opinion.

But that is going off topic for this thread. Sorry.

[nik]

(08-25-2010 03:34 AM)JFK Wrote:  

(08-25-2010 03:11 AM)nik Wrote:  fair enough, I find it bevond reason that the whole operation would be presumably hinged on their fly boys' skills..too much left to happenstance...unless there was no conspiracy of course..then it would make sense...
unlike some of the banshees wailing on the board are want to insist, I don't subscribe to any one all encompassing theory..I just want the fresh research to be looked at properly..the feasibility of this happening here though with all the sythetic Oestrogen affected hyenas on the prowl suddenly is making it look as low as a 5 times world limbo champ right now, at least you don't paint it all as black or white. And I still think that guy is a bona fide cointelpro agent,planes or not. have fun

I agree with the bolded, and I DO have the system schematics manual ( as well as the aircraft maintainance manual ) for the 757-200 and there are 4 seperate possible data paths for that model to be flown remotely with very little modification to the on board avionics. I am NOT saying that that is what happened, but the possibility is there... and I assume that the 767 is even more advanced in that respect.

The final manuver of the second plane recorded from several angles actually suggests that it was being flown by a computer rather than a live pilot either on the flight deck or in a remote location... in my opinion.

But that is going off topic for this thread. Sorry.

In and of themselves, drones still wouldn't explain the discrepancies and oddities found in "the 17 seconds enigma" video from the septclues research forum posted up here under the same title, JFK -- as nor does the video in itself go anyways to rule out the idea of drones but it is about manipulation of media if not directly concerned with fakery of it

[Melchor]

(08-25-2010 01:23 AM)nik Wrote:  thats not the tone it was written in but whateva`

Well I apologize if that was not the tone of your post. I possibly inferred something from the gist of your other recent posts on the subject. You have been on somewhat of a crusade on the issue as of late.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that the maneuvers were impossible for the aircraft, possibly for the pilots. First, the only information available of the crash are reconstructions and clips covering less than a minute. Nothing in the videos look spectacular or unreasonable and the chain of custody on the reconstructions is highly suspect.

Admittedly, I haven't delved into claims that the maneuvers are impossible because any video fakery to me wouldn't really change the my understanding of the event anyway and is thus fairly inconsequential to the overall 9-11 narrative. The claimed path of the pentagon is clearly ridiculous but nothing in the video of the second plane seems impossible to me. It descends some ascends some and keeps pretty much a straight trajectory. Nothing that stands out as a red flag like the spiraling nose dive in DC.

I guess you could chalk that up to my apathy toward how it happened. In my mind the evidence that points to who (the put options, the terror drills, extra collapsing buildings, and the inability of NIST to come up with a satisfactory explanation of the collapse, for example) is much more important. Maybe you can explain to me what implications follow from fakery that make it so significant?