100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes

[Doc Quack]

Don't believe the bullshit shill statements liberally spread over this thread like dog feces on a debate.

Spend some time at reading into real, thorough research that broaches the subject definitively and is well out of the league of their sanctimonious opinionated drivel @

http://www.septemberclues.info

How could anyone trust the intellectual integrity of someone too dense to even know how to use a bloody spellchecker?

[Negentropic]

Quote:"NONE OF THE VIDEOS THAT WERE SHOWN LIVE OR CLOSE-TO-LIVE SHOW A PLANE HITTING A TOWER."
This is a lie, a denial of facts, a deception, incorrect. ill go with horseshit.

Why, if the explosion was created, was it consistent with a large object filled with fuel with delays in ejection describing this?

How do you consider that no other video recordings of the event have surfaced? Are you saying every single video was just another government agent? exactly how many people do you involve in this treason? Why can you not account for the elements in life that one cannot predict. millions of people but only "the man" had a video camera? greta plan. aparently these guys know what they are doing. but they are going to risk 1 guy in possibly millions of people having a camcorder to hand.

Well, it happens to be the truth whether you call it 'horseshit' or not. No other 'live' (17 second delay) videos WERE EVER SHOWN, only those that show the so-called 'plane' going across the screen, passing the edge of the building and then BEHIND the building. You see no actual impact & you see no holes, just an explosion coming out the other side. In fact the Live vidoes were only re-played 'non-live' once or twice & then NEVER PLAYED AGAIN. Even in these replays you have the station logo in the MIDDLE of the screen blocking the view. All the shots of the plane melting STRAIGHT ON into the building were from various amateur videos (all with proven fakery) THAT APPEARED LATER which means PLENTY OF TIME to have been easily constructed later as has been proven. If all the amateur video guys were not 'Agents' then how did ALL their videos, every last one, end up completely fake? Maybe you can explain that to us? And since when was it hard to hire a few mercenary bastards to fake a few videos? By the way ALL of these guys refuse to talk about their fake videos, they have a gag order and ALL of them direct you to a lawyer instead. Go and try to get an interview with any of these douches and see what happens as Ace & Shack have tried. See if you can get a single word out of them. These few amateur vids are the shots that have been played 1000s of times, not the live vids. The live vids with the so-called plane going BEHIND THE BUILDING & the nose coming out the other side have only been found, salvaged, analysed & played over & over again on the internet never again on mainstream TV.






Is that BEHIND enough for you? Do you see an impact there? No, you see the plane going behind the building and an explosion out the other side. All the other live-delay shots are also of planes going BEHIND the building. Any other video you find showing actual IMPACT or rather MELTING of plane into building of one of the so-called amateur ones that came later.

You cannot get the networks to release high quality video of those live shots. Basically the mainstream media whores are pretending to the sheeple and to all of the plane-huggers in the 9/11 truth movement too it seems, that all the amateur vids have been confirmed as authentic by 'experts' which is a complete lie. There's your horseshit for your, not what the no-planers have investigated and proven as fact. You should thank the no-planers for persevering in the face of such massive opposition, banned by Prison Planet. banned from INFOWARS, banned from Jeff Rense, banned from Loose Change forums, banned by Christopher Bollyn, banned by Daryl Bradford Smith, banned by 80% of the troofers, and yet they stick to their guns to emerge the victors.


In my opinion the explosion and the rest of the video was shot live & the layer made in advance composited right away and replayed as Ace Baker stated. The chopper was ready & in position in advance for the shot of the explosion, waiting for it, the people in the studio waiting to overlay the video of the plane-like object going across the screen on top of the video of the explosion shot. They arranged the whole thing in advance. Read below once again for enlightenment :

Quote:And I want to stress this, I've said this over and over but I want to say it again: NONE OF THE VIDEOS THAT WERE SHOWN LIVE OR CLOSE-TO-LIVE SHOW A PLANE HITTING A TOWER. They show a plane crossing the screen and disappearing behind the edge of a tower. The ones that appear to show the plane melting into the tower, those came out much, much later. So they would have had the airplane image ready to go, prepared long ahead of time, sitting on a transparent channel called an Alpha Channel that could be overlaid. The timing would have to be good, you'd want the plane to disappear behind the edge of the tower and then have the explosion happen but they could easily record the explosion, then overlay the plane, then play the thing back within 15 to 20 seconds and call it 'Live.'

Collin Alexander aka Ace Baker on Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer, November 7,

"None of the live videos from 9/11 showed the plane hitting the tower. I REPEAT. None of them showed the plane hitting the tower. All of them showed the plane crossing the screen and disappearing behind the edge of a tower. There are a good number of videos that emerged later on but of the live videos none of them showed the plane hitting the tower. And simply having a plane cross a screen and disappear behind an edge is just a very simple kind of an effect to do. You don't need to show anything breaking or twisting or anything, it's just basically overlaying a video and then creating a layer mask which is you describe an area of the screen where one of the video elements is going to disappear. That's just a standard tool in any of the video manipulation programs like After-effects and many, many others.

So we notice that we don't actually see the plane hit the tower, we see it disappear and then it sure looks to me that we see the nose of the airplane coming out the other side for about 6 or 7 frames worth of video, for about a third of a second or something and then very quickly we see a fade to black.

Collin Alexander aka Ace Baker - The Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer, September 27, 2007


2007http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/91...&order=asc

The above cannot be stressed enough and seems to be the root of the confusion for a lot of you die-hard plane-huggers who want so hard to believe their trusty little media whores were somehow just as fooled by the 'Inside Job' as they were. Not true. Media Whores Orchestrated the whole thing and were in on it from way before the beginning.


What remains is that ALL the videos are fake to a highly suspicious degree and therefore not to be trusted AT ALL. The media has proven over & over again that it is not worthy of even one iota of trust & these fake videos & the famous video of the BBC reporter announcing the collapse of Building 7 before its collapse are the FINAL NAILS in its coffin. The debate or factional warfare with people in different factions banning each other and calling each other agents in the No-Planer community is about THE DEGREE AND TYPES OF FAKERY.




If you want technical details of videos that interest tech-head video professionals like yourself why don't you take it up with the OTHER VIDEO PROFESSIONALS Ace Baker & Simon Shack themselves at their respective websites. That's in case you're humble enough to doubt for even one moment that YOU MAY NOT KNOW-IT ALL When you can humble yourself just enough to admit you might be wrong, go ahead and e-mail them. They answer their e-mails. Ace is banned from Shack's & Killtown's Forums.

[rsol]

well if you cant define live and into a building as a side shot but from the wrong angle.... its not.

you make the bold statement(in bold) but its not true. you have then said well its not on the side i want to see. once again. its all very loose. bold assertion followed by excuse. its lies. there was video. not a very good shot granted. and i mean. if you wanted to really show this off why not get the live shot at the correct angle? once again IF it were on the correct angle for you THAT would be more suspicious. but can i ask if you say that all the time then not point to the nose-out video? hello!

no planes melt into the building. you are imagining things. can i ask you how they managed to make that smoke spiral around from the disturbance in the air? was the explosion a video effect? have you any comprehension of the amount of calculation power needed to make something even close to realistic and with even the most skilled award winning compositers that are yet to make something convincing enough for others to not be sure. are you saying that?

Im yet to see a convincing composite EVER!! some have come close but there is always a tell. 100s of millions of dollars spent, 1000s of man hours spent tinkering to iron out every last bit with the tippest toppest in the field of computer generated wizardry and still they miss the mark. yet on 9/11 ten years ago they had it sussed and on a government payrole.....talented enough but still more interested in working for uncle sam. you dont have many creative friends do you?

judging from what i have seen of simon shack and his doodlings he is not qualified to hold a camera never mind edit video or even give a semi-professional opinion. Ace baker had to have angles explained to him. he was schooled by even simple logic but has a case of total denial when his supposed evidence is presented to him as incorrect. his agenda clouds his judgment.

and one last point just saying the the videos were not live gives you still nothing. as you have no proof all you have is allegation built on speculation. you cant prove it was faked live or before. you have no proof to consider every level in the mainstream media, lets not exclude local news too.

Quote:That's in case you're humble enough to doubt for even one moment that YOU MAY NOT KNOW-IT ALL When you can humble yourself just enough to admit you might be wrong

you took the words right out of my mouth.

[rsol]

(02-16-2011 04:32 AM)Doc Quack Wrote:  Don't believe the bullshit shill statements liberally spread over this thread like dog feces on a debate.

Spend some time at reading into real, thorough research that broaches the subject definitively and is well out of the league of their sanctimonious opinionated drivel @

http://www.septemberclues.info

How could anyone trust the intellectual integrity of someone too dense to even know how to use a bloody spellchecker?

sanctimonious? pushing piety? erm forget spell checkers you need a dictionary. always best to research a word before you use it. or is that beyond your thorough mind?.....and spell checker isnt one word. i leave it up to you to spot the irony in there.

please check out September Clues please do. have a look at what you are actually championing.... this is supposed to be a guy who knows a thing or two about design...remember?....

[JazzRoc]

(02-16-2011 08:09 PM)rsol Wrote:  I think you have a distaste for 9/11 truth people but have only been able to easily destroy the no-plane argument and have decided to tar the rest of the 9/11 movement. perhaps you should lump us with the chemtrail folks out there? ufo hunters? anything else daft so that no one is without doubt that 9/11 truth is for wack jobs? bad form jazz and badly researched.

Not so, and you know not so.





Nothing about "9-11 Truth" has ever made the slightest sense to me. Every point they have ever made has been debunked. They are standing in the rubble of their arguments. Nothing remains except the rank smell of paranoia, fear and defeat. They have nothing to do save learn some science and how to distinguish between belief and understanding.




Wave vortices in aftermath

Quote:erm forget spell checkers you need a dictionary. always best to research a word before you use it. or is that beyond your thorough mind?.....and spell checker isnt one word. i leave it up to you to spot the irony in there.
please check out September Clues please do. have a look at what you are actually championing.... this is supposed to be a guy who knows a thing or two about design...remember?...

I only use a thesaurus. That's to turn up different adjectives, mostly. Though sometimes it stimulates a better turn of phrase.
You sometimes turn up with an assonant word to the one you intended, so perhaps you need to be, er, studied in your criticism.
It was nice to be welcomed back.

[rsol]

the only way for you to recieve a welcome i wouldnt expect it any other way.

[jj1212008]

If there were no planes, then why isn't there any video showing explosions only, with no planes impacting?

You guys seem to be debating the possibility of faking the planes, but if there weren't any, surely there'd be video of that? No one "leaked" an unedited copy?

But maybe then you'd be debating how'd they erase the planes...

[rsol]

nose out video. was a live shot. plane goes in you have explosion and loads of no planers saying its fake then claiming that no live shots of a plane exits. can anyone spot the self perpetuating delusion?

[Hans Olo]

(02-20-2011 12:37 PM)rsol Wrote:  nose out video. was a live shot. plane goes in you have explosion and loads of no planers saying its fake then claiming that no live shots of a plane exits.

Who says no live shots of a plane exists? No live shots of a plane crashing the tower exists, that's what they say.

[rsol]

nose out video. thats a live shot and and it has the plane crashing into the tower. its the nose out video. its also shows the nose-in. can i explain it any clearer??

[Hans Olo]

no, their point is, you don't really see an impact in that video either. All you can see is a plane disappearing in the building like into butter, and then nose-out, and then an explosion.

[rsol]

yes i agree. its a shit shot. but it is a plane hitting a building. quibble over the angle but its still incorrect to be so dismissive. its all made up in their little world. Ive said this before, if you cant tell what isn't, all you see is conspiracy. there is a limit. not just in imagination or morals but simple logistics. the very idea that this very idea would even pass through the CIA mill is a joke. you give them infinite scope but still consider them dip-shits. implicating almost every media person puts a HUGE strain on information containment. the idea that a video processor able to perform what you describe without arousing suspicion of anyone ever to even play with a 3d program or compositing software.....grinable.....If you even knew where the bar stood NOW........

2 years old now but a landmark visual effect

http://danbreckwoldt.com/home.html

Hes the lead compositor, the guy who makes sure its all lined up and looking like its supposed to.....

he was lead to this
skip to 1:55




epic explosions using arrays of hardware rendering for months. that fire and smoke is one of the first of its kind, blew many away. fantastic work with a very limited budget. Its inaccurate because the wing seems to be missing all its fuel and decided to store it inside the plane by accounts of the explosion. but this is a taster of the sort of work professionals do and have the capacity for NOW.

pretty realistic huh?

so you can see how its done. check out this link
http://danbreckwoldt.com/plane_crash.html

i do a few things myself and have hours of fun making smoke and fire effects on blender. i suggest any budding no-planer should school themselves up on the how-tos of compositing and 3d. it would also help them to appreciate the effort and time going into projects such as this. they may see the virtual reality view of 9/11 in new light. you have nothing to lose but your ignorance of the topic. hell get nuke 3d if you can afford it!

[jj1212008]

Think my point is that there are no shots of raw no planes video. Shouldn't there be? Or did they manage to track down and find all the video taken and edit it, and after nearly 10 years, not 1 original no plane video has surfaced.

[Hans Olo]

What do you mean by "no plane video"? Videos that don't show a plane?

[jj1212008]

(02-22-2011 08:02 AM)Hans Olo Wrote:  What do you mean by "no plane video"? Videos that don't show a plane?

exactly- original videos with no planes, only explosions.