A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

But you have NO proof a real plane impacted the south tower besides seeing it on TV. That's one of many points that shows the weakness of those who support the official story. You never try to prove there were planes because the news footage, when looked at properly debunks the plane myth totally and completely.

 

Yet you try to say so called 'orbs' hit the towers,relying on WHAT for your images?

You denigrate US forusing the medium, well YOU by God better get ready to do it to yourself

Sorry jackson, but the burden of proof is on YOU,millions there that day SAW the planes

 

My god I had better watch out 'they ' are out to get me. A conspiracy here, a conspiracy there, a conspiracy everywhere.Here are some more for everyone to cogitate on (sleepless nights perhaps?):

I Diana still alive and was she killed at the direction of the Royals?

Did the Mafia kill Kennedy"

Is Elvis still alive and strumming his guitar?

Conspiracy theories, don't you love them! We seek them here, we seek them there, we seeks them everywhere. (with apologies to The Scarlet Pimpernel!)

 

No one saw a 767 on the ground and that's the point that you will always run from.

 

I haven't run from you yet

And yes,people saw a 767 on the ground

 

Tell that to the witnesses from this page.

 

The burden of proof is not on me to substantiate your claims. You did not substantiate your claims and I explained multiple times why. For everyone else's sake, I'll do so again and I have no faith at all that you'll rebut these challenges to your claims either.

You did not post 4 live broadcasts. You posted 4 animated gifs that had been created using GIF soup from youtube source files. These images have been filtered and compressed and no longer can be called live footage.

None of the animated gifs you posted were aired live.

I asked you questions that challenge your premise. You answered none of them. You demonstrated zero understanding of digital media, compression techniques, and format limitations. This shows that you're not someone qualified to analyze these photographs, or explain the existence of artifacts in highly filtered images.

Beyond that you've demonstrated zero understanding of digital rendering techniques and the differences between raster based photographs and vector based cgi.

The only thing that you've done here is spam posts that you've spammed all over the internet, and ignore the gaping technical flaws in your argument.

 

"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED. No one on the ground saw flight 175 or on live TV.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=25"]911stealth David Handschuh Propelled in Air a Block by Explosion & Saw No Plane - YouTube[/ame]

 

Whatever people may have seen for flight 11 is not reflected in the naudet footage. It's a blob that plopped into the tower. It cannot be identified as a 767 and that's all that really matters for the north tower. Reasonable doubt is accomplished from that silly footage all by itself.

 

I posted overwhelming proof from many directions and you answered none of it. You demonstrated that you cannot challenge visual facts and made up nonsense like saying that it's no longer live footage because it was recorded and uploaded. It was live footage and will always be live footage. A small object was not noticed or called a chopper and then written off as the plane which is a simple falsehood. The only thing you've done here is nothing because you cannot prove a real plane was in the area when the second tower was impacted. An orb came from the northwest traveling very slow and caused tower 2's explosion. No challenge has ever been put forth against the simple and visual facts I decided to point out.

 

That post is exactly what I expected from you. All bark no bite.

 

I did challenge the quality of your media and I gave specific reasons why your media cannot be interpreted in the way you interpret it. You called my reasons nonsense, yet you did not demonstrate they were nonsense.

This is because you don't know what I'm talking about. There's a difference between something that is nonsense, and something you can't make sense of. It's only nonsense to you because you have no idea how digital media works.

You made excuses, but you did not rebut the technical problems with your media.

This is false. I did not say it was no longer live footage because it was recorded and uploaded. You clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. The video is not live footage because it has been altered. It was altered by the MPEG encoding process, and it was altered by the GIF image dithering process. This footage that you posted here is not the footage that was shown live on TV. This is the charge that you have not, and can not rebut.

Oh god. Now we have to talk about frame rate and aspect ratio too? Why should I bother?

Tell me the exact speed that you think the orb is going. Explain how you got that answer. Prove to me you know what the heck you're talking about.

 

I can understand spamming these fantasies on some of the other boards,But a BOXING forum?

 

I've been lurking this discussion a bit and I have to say it looks like Fangbeer knows what he is talking about and showed some expertise on the topic of video/photography that makes a bit of sense.

I'm not saying you're wrong necesarily but you REALLY need to actually address these things about how such differentials can arise in the digital manipulation process.

It reminds me of another discussion I had about the side by side falling WTC7 vs. other controlled demolitions, used to illustrate the same exact fall time and characteristics between them, to imply WTC7 fell the same and must have also been a controlled demolition.

While I firmly believe WTC7 may have been a controlled demo, such side by side comparison doesn't prove it because first of all, theres no way to know the speed is the same, as one side can EASILY be slowed down, sped up from its real world counterpart, and, the buildings are of different height, so the building on one side might be taller, and the video taken from farther away, so while it looks like the speed was the same, they didn't as the taller one must have fallen faster if they reached the ground at the same time, as it covered greater distance.

Similar to this but not delving into the nitty gritty technical stuff like fangbeer did.

All in all I know one thing.. The closest thing to the original is probably what was shown on the telley the morning of.. I watched it, I saw no orb, but I did see a bloody plane crash into the WTC.

 

Wow, that was almost taking a firm stand. Congratulations I guess.

 

I honestly appreciate that.

 

A Eureka moment for real 911 research

Whether truthers have noticed this before or not, I don't know but the live footage and the wide east view do NOT show the nose of the fake plane come out the north side of T2. The natural sway of a chopper and live real-time fakery provided the nose-out blunder.

 

PAPD Sgt William Ross

 

I wonder why Fan refuses to even try explaining how an orb could be a cgi or even more absurd, a real 767, because he can't and no person on this planet will ever publicly make such assinine claims.

No person with knowledge of computer imaging will ever argue (publicly) that the obvious fakery perped on 911 was somehow not cgi because a ton of it occurred in countless videos.

Fan has no proof of real planes nor does anyone else. CGI images are easily proven by showing WB11's footage which showed the orb for 23 minutes before the first cgi finally hit TV screens at 9:27. She first described it live on air, that it could be a police helicopter, proving beyond any doubt that she saw exactly what appeared on TV when it aired live. It wasn't a chopper because she didn't identify as such, because it wasn't, therefore, obviously could not have been a plane. The orb casts its own shadow here but not as clear as chopper 4.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1d9POXM&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=121&feature=plpp_video"]2nd hit WB11 W*P*I*X LIVE Dr. Ebbetts - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=34&feature=plpp_video"]WPIX (WB11) 9/11 9:21 - 9:31 - YouTube[/ame]

Fan does not have evidence for real planes because none exists outside of fantasy and willful ignorance. His refusal to answer facts simply underscores his nothing premise.

 

Please do not call what you've done here research. Your efforts here barely rise to the level of "discussion" let alone research.

If you really want to research these images, you should start by learning about the media you are viewing.

You've made a host of easily identified false claims about your images that you would not have made if you had even the slightest inkling about how these images are encoded and displayed.

Just look at the Good Day NY logo in the last GIF animation and you can easily see an example of the compression artifacts that are common to your images. The actual Fox 5 Good Day NY logo is yellow, red, and blue. It is not rainbow colored and there is no black in the logo at all.

The area behind "NY" should be blue, not black. The "NY" should be a solid yellow. The rectangle behind "Good Day" should be a solid red and not a red drop shadow on a black background.

 

From a window on the 61st floor in the north tower, Ezra Aviles had seen everything. He knew it was no bomb. His window faced north, and he saw the plane tearing through the skies, heading straight for the tower. It had crashed into the building over his head-how far, he was not sure.
Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn "102 minutes, The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers." Henry Holt & Co. New York.; 2005.

 

CGI editing is easily identifiable in raster images. There are multiple tools available to the serious researcher that can positively identify digital manipulation, both intentional, and unintentional.

You have not mentioned these tools.

Instead you made a bunch of novice assertions about these images that you cannot backup with any physical evidence.

Have you run any error level analysis on these images?

 

thats why I dont buy into this one.too many people saw the plane strike it.The no plane theory was just created to sidetrack the truth movement and speaking of the commercial plane Becardi,it was a plane but it doesnt look like any commerical airliner from the pics taken and there is that one vidoe of that lady saying out loud-that was not a commerical airliner and others described it as not looking like one either.

 

A good guess is this small plane was flying 2-300mph. Compare that to the dive plop of whatever hit tower 1 and you need no more proof that it wasn't a 767 and was not flying anywhere near as fast as this low plane. A twin engine jet could never at the last second, from above the towers, dive into any building going 500mph.

 

What makes you think this is a "good guess?" How have you referenced the speed of the plane based on the information available in that first graphic?

Compare it how?

The frame rate between the two images is different.
The aircraft are traveling in different vectors in relation to the camera.
The aircraft are viewed at different distances in relation to the camera.
The aircraft are two different sizes.

How do you intend to make a comparison between the two?

I'll help you out. The example aircraft you gave is a Mirage F1. It appears to be configured as a ground attack platform with an air to ground radar pod mounted below the fuselage. The airframe is capable of 1400+ miles an hour. It's 50 feet long and 27 1/2 feet wide.