Plain 'No Plane' Pain

[---]

In terms of 'TV fakery"it's pretty obvious you didn't even have the good grace to check out the site I referenced for you,Coffinman.

You give the impression that the facade of the WTC was an absolutely inpenetrable barrier. Am I wrong to think it was made of separate pieces?

I think it's stretching things to expect a mass moving at hundreds of miles an hour to be stopped in it tracks by the facade with the result that the rest of it 'falls away'

Again, you're sticking to this idea that the pod and the flash at impact was added to fake photos to help convince people there were planes - I say that is the maddest thing I've heard all day.

For all we know the POD was a modified bunker buster type of armament.

The only TV fakery I KNOW was present is where the positions of buildings are out of whack. In terms of 'nose out' and other pixel anomalies,I seriously suggest you look at the site I linked to.

Let's leave the Z issue aside for the time being..this is about the reality of there being planes.

[Hans Olo]

Quote:The pod is also portrayed in the atrocious fake that CNN broadcast on the night of September 11 and which can be paused before the "impact" to reveal parts of the plane having vanished, and during the impact to show a plane buried in an undamaged building:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/impact.jpg
This is impossible.

You're right, that cannot happen in real life. But it can happen on compressed digital video, it's called Motion compensation. More specificially, block motion compensation may produce exactly that effect. Take that, and the fact that every mpg based video compression uses motion compensation, into consideration:

"Block motion compensation divides up the current frame into non-overlapping blocks, and the motion compensation vector tells where those blocks come from (...). The source blocks typically overlap in the source frame. Some video compression algorithms assemble the current frame out of pieces of several different previously-transmitted frames.

At least it's a possibility, and we should be careful not running around waving our arms shouting we got proof, just sayin. Btw this does not explain the nose-out-shots. Got to come up with something else to explain that one away. Anyone?

Coffinman, the rest of your article there I read with great interest, thank you. The physics of the no-plane-theory is fascinating, although difficult. It's hard to prove that something was not there. Just as it's hard to prove that there is no global warming. That's because something that's not there does not produce any evidence that you can use, if you think about it. You can't even make up any... the other side always can.

nik, I just read the article you linked and am happy to find someone backing my theory. I mean, it's obvious, block artefacts, compression, distortion, blurr, ..... you can see all sorts of things in there.

[standvast]

Nik Wrote:You give the impression that the facade of the WTC was an absolutely inpenetrable barrier. Am I wrong to think it was made of separate pieces?

I think it's stretching things to expect a mass moving at hundreds of miles an hour to be stopped in it tracks by the facade with the result that the rest of it 'falls away'

i agree, i think it is possible for a plane , travelling at the momentum it did,
to pierce the facade, swipe away colums, and cause the holes it did.
as an example of why i'm sceptic ;
I've seen it before, sure, the scenario was different, but it dealt with a large size plane
penetrating a concrete and steel building.
I'm talking about the "Bijlmerramp" which was an El AL plane flying into the bijlmer housing projects, Amsterdam 1992.





now, i'm aware it's no skyscraper, and the structure of the building is way different from WTC 1/2
but the plane did not "explode on the outside" because it didn't have the mass/momentum to penetrate.

Quote:Again, you're sticking to this idea that the pod and the flash at impact was added to fake photos to help convince people there were planes - I say that is the maddest thing I've heard all day.

I'd love for someone to explain the non existing plane on which the pod was edited in also...
the debris of planes found on the ground around the towers doesn't look like props placed there to convince people of planes much either.

hans olo Wrote:nik, I just read the article you linked and am happy to find someone backing my theory. I mean, it's obvious, block artefacts, compression, distortion, blurr, ..... you can see all sorts of things in there.

That goes for most if not all of the compressed youtube video's which are used as "evidence"
of pod anomalies or the presumed absence of planes.

peace'

[---]

I remember that terrible El Al disaster - another intentionally downed flight, I believe.

I'm glad this thread is happening, it's about time this discussion went full on - it sickens me the amount of people who turned away because of the no plane cult.

I stand by my opinion that shots where buildings are out of natural place were intentionally poisoning the well to create this myth.

You should wise up to this finally, Coffinman - it hurts us to keep peddling psy-ops

[Hans Olo]

Quote:

hans olo Wrote:nik, I just read the article you linked and am happy to find someone backing my theory. I mean, it's obvious, block artefacts, compression, distortion, blurr, ..... you can see all sorts of things in there.

That goes for most if not all of the compressed youtube video's which are used as "evidence"
of pod anomalies or the presumed absence of planes.

Yes, but that means all these videos and websites where people don't even consider motion compensation and similar compression artefacts are proven wrong right there.

Anyway, the "nose-out" effect is not so easy to explain. And there is much more. Which is the most accurate TV fakery video you guys have seen? I must say that I found "september clues" to be very well done, almost compelling to watch. But I have not checked their technicalities yet so I can say nothing about its accuracy.

What I'm looking for is a TV fakery analysis without the obvious mistakes... not full of conclusions and premisses, but full of analysis of the material.

[---]

I thought the whole nose out thing relied apon the premise that a 'micro-precision match' had been determined from the footage..insofar as what I've read. it really doesn't seem to be the case.

[Hans Olo]

At a certain magnification there is no 'micro-precision' anymore. Just isn't. The pixels match, but there are not that many pixels in the first place.
Anyway, what we see in the nose-out shoot is that the nose of the plane going through the building, showing on the other side and then disappearing into thin air, followed by some blackened frames. Explain that one away for me;)

[---]

Quote:At a certain magnification there is no 'micro-precision' anymore. Just isn't. The pixels match, but there are not that many pixels in the first place.
Anyway, what we see in the nose-out shoot is that the nose of the plane going through the building, showing on the other side and then disappearing into thin air, followed by some blackened frames. Explain that one away for me;)

Well, It really depends on whether you convince yourself it's the nose of the plane, or not.. I think it's entirely plausible that it's the initial ejecta from the explosion that can be seen.

By mentioning the mapping of the nose out shape I was implying that it doesn't really make a definitive match so much at all, when put under very close scrutiny. The site I linked also explores this issue.

And otherwise, I don't entirely rule out that it may well be an item of doctored footage but I've already explained how I think that might have worked.

But as a stand alone, it certainly is no where near compelling enough to make me think there were no physical planes used in that operation.

Look at it this way, the building may well have been rigged since 1993 - the security drills in the weeks prior to September 11th 2001 may well have facilitated the planting of devices at strategic locations in the architecture...perhaps there was a use of DEW technology too - but the thing is, even if ALL these things were happening in conjunction would it then be easier to try and hoax planes than to actually just slam two remote controlled planes into the building as well - even in the case that they were hijacked as claimed - I don't rule it out - I would imagine they would have been installed with a remote control beacon too, considering the intense difficulty of their maneuver.

A multi-faceted attack scenario is the one I find most tenable.

[Coffinman]

Quote:....the intense difficulty of their maneuver.

= Impossibility:

[the airspeed of 400 knots at sea level is well outside the maximum operating speed of the Boeing 767-200 and therefore the pilots would run the risk of either total structural failure or localised structural failures, namely wing fairings breaking off, engine cowlings breaking off, control surfaces breaking off or becoming inoperative and handling difficulties.]

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/speed/

The air resistance at low altitude would shake the plane to pieces at that speed.
Could they have used a space shuttle, perhaps?
;)

[---]

Quote:

Quote:....the intense difficulty of their maneuver.

= Impossibility:

[the airspeed of 400 knots at sea level is well outside the maximum operating speed of the Boeing 767-200 and therefore the pilots would run the risk of either total structural failure or localised structural failures, namely wing fairings breaking off, engine cowlings breaking off, control surfaces breaking off or becoming inoperative and handling difficulties.]

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/speed/

The air resistance at low altitude would shake the plane to pieces at that speed.
Could they have used a space shuttle, perhaps?
;)

There is NOTHING in that link which says it would be an "impossibility", Actually, the whole premise rests on coulds,mights and maybes, with the upshot being that it wouldn't have been prudent and why were they in such a rush? It nowhere says it was "impossible" why misrepresent like this? Do you think I haven't a brain?

IT'S NOT COMPELLING EVIDENCE!

Quote:The only conclusion that can be drawn from this UA175 airspeed analysis is that the video recordings are all giving us different speeds because the UA175 aircraft was actually travelling at a different speed in each video!

No, that's the speeds are all relatively close to each other (including Kausel's) - the only calculation with any significant disparity occurs as the 'unknown video' calculation - made by the article's author..potentially his calculation is just out, considering the material he worked from it's not likely to be fps precise,is it?? No significant disparity here.

Quote:The fact that all the videos apparently show a structurally intact Boeing 767-200 in controlled flight prior to its collision with WTC2 travelling at such a ridiculously high airspeed is another indicator that whatever the UA175 aircraft was, it was not a production model Boeing 767-200, or it was simply something that has been added to the video recording in post production either to conceal what the video recording originally showed, or to add something to the recording that should have been there, but was in fact absent from the original recording.

I have never contended the former conclusion but nevertheless, case in point,the piece is STILL WHOLLY CONJECTURE, there's no conclusive scientific 'debunking' here of there having been planes other than to say it would have been a very risky maneuver for the pilots and highly stressful to te planes structure....and? Does anyone in fact actually know the exact descent of the crafts anyhow?

Quote:'Maybe it was the space shuttle?

I paraphrase but really, the way no-planers cling to this fantasy that it was all an illusion, at all costs and beyond all discretion, is total folly.

[Halliburton Crusher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbYAV5fCGiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI3ZpLuz3ts

magicians get away with whatever their audiences do not understand. i realize this is a heavy topic, and people who are new to 911 truth, after 7 years, should not be offered tv fakery, no plane, or directed energy weaponry as a starter course of study, but open mindedness is crucial or else the magician can use the same tricks, again.

i don`t understand some items, such as the flash before the plane hits the building, but i had a feeling something was not right when i noticed in the film, 911 in plane site, that one scene showed what looked more like a black silhouette of a plane more so than an actual plane, flying from left to right in the scene.

i am also perplexed about people/witnesses on the streets. some say they did not see a plane, while some say they did. food for thought - only seven years later the beijing olympics had holographic fireworks which surprised people. they were in color, also.

even fairbanks footage of the north tower/#1 being hit shows zero reaction from the "plane" or the tower until the plane image is 3/4 of the way into the building. if you play it frame by frame you will understand this.

we do not need to delude ourselves into thinking that any differences of opinion about certain items of 911 will be bad for the truth movement. people worry too much about what new people to 911 truth will think of plane versus no plane too much. the solution is simple. introduce people who are new to some of the simple aspects of the physical aspects first. my favorite film to give to 911 virgins is 911 in plane site. after that, 911 mysteries is good for a more in depth look at the physics of that day.

when i have handed out dvds in my cities airport, a few people who have refused to take a free dvd from me have confronted me about "no planes". i realized that they simply wanted to vent at me without any willingness to have a civil conversation. i responded by saying, "of course there were no planes. the airforce did not respond with there planes! they could have easily reached the hijacked planes." i then mention that it is ridiculous that the pentagon could not defend itself. the final convincer is when i mention building seven, and of course the simple math of the buildings falling so quickly. buildings one and two, 220 stories, fell in 18 seconds. thats 12 stories per second. that is a demolition. 911 truth deniers then shuffle their feet and disappear.

[7forever]

Whomever Cloud turned his footage over to, added a black blob. Clifton, did not hear nor see a plane. It would have been coming from his left. Clifton, debunks all video fakery shown on 911. Advance to 2:00 for his real-time account. He says it over and over and over and over. He didn't see a plane because there was no plane to see. The blob cannot be seen south of where it magically appeared. He was about a mile east of the towers and slightly north.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, no plane hit nothin', the building exploded from the other tower floors down."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2unTcZnY...plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkzxaHAcNc

---

Using crap fuzzy very low quality heavily distorted badly compressed clips from youtube is not evidence of real boeings.

Why don't the plane idiots source the originals and go buy themselves some copies and make a short video showing something different than blurry black blobs with wings and engines misplaced that all support cgi planes? Because they know that all plane photographs and videos are easily proven fakes.

You have to admit if that happened and it showed real boeings as you don't claim, then honest thinking folks would have to rethink their conclusions that jackass fakery was used on 911. A real boeing banking left does not make the right engine appear closer to the fuselage, nor can the left wing be attached to air with the flap open on the front, instead of rear where it must be, but isn't, because it's a disasterous fake failure.






The hinged control surfaces are used to steer and control the airplane. The flaps and ailerons are connected to the backside of the wings. The flaps slide back and down to increase the surface of the wing area. They also tilt down to increase the curve of the wing. The slats move out from the front of the wings to make the wing space larger. This helps to increase the lifting force of the wing at slower speeds like takeoff and landing. The ailerons are hinged on the wings and move downward to push the air down and make the wing tilt up. This moves the plane to the side and helps it turn during flight. After landing, the spoilers are used like air brakes to reduce any remaining lift and slow down the airplane.

---

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

"A lot of ah, uncertainty right now as to what is happening, you can see there are choppers--I believe that could be a police helicopter that is co...oooh."

She only mentioned choppers being in the area after the drone came into frame. She was stunned and shocked when the tower exploded because what appeared on screen had no wings or propeller, which is the very reason she said it only might be a chopper. She used the smallest aircraft that most people would be familiar that fit closest in size to the unknown flying blob. She could have said it was a green concord, but its unknown status would remain for anyone dealing in reality.

"We just saw another (long pause because she did not describe a plane) live picture of, duhhh, what I believe, duhhh, was a plane that just hit another plane?" So, it went from an unidentifiable chopper, to, duh, what she knew had to be a plane, because that's what was supposed to happen, but didn't.

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the orb was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice the bogey move directly east and cgi more left/north.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H2fCp...E&index=30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9...E&index=34

---

Techmac's digital attempt at computer generated imagery was assinine. Note that it has no right wing and the left wing and engine dislodge right after it gets below the copyright. It convienently zooms in preventing view of the faux image between the towers. WB11 didn't get its first plane morph until 9:27 and the similarities between the two are profound. Only a cgi could have a fake left wing and no right wing.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla..._g7X7WFSwg