Please cite your best evidence of "no-planes"

everything on youtube comes from somewhere else LOL

- - - Updated - - -

let the strawmanning begin!

how embarrassed you will be IF I tell you

 

The original is easily viewed on youtube, I am not going to bother posting it simply because your lack of seeking this video proves you really have no interest in truth, just information that suits your agenda. Any real researcher would have sort out the primary document and studied it in great detail

 

kool, send gomolon the link

 

Hey Koko!

You know the USMessageBoard you and I are on? Well here is a thread you started regarding the same thing.

So you linked the video you supposedly "slowed down" and got gifs from eh Koko? I then posted my gif, which shows a wing, taken from the video I linked above and showed it to you. You claimed mine was a remake of the original. When I look again at your video linked above, what did I find? It was posted by someone named John Has A Long Mustache on Published on Feb 26, 2013.


Mine was uploaded on Uploaded on Aug 19, 2009. When this was presented to you, what did you say about the video you posted from John Has A Long Mustache this year? This was quite the backpedal I might add.

So where is the original Koko?

 

You made the video off a DVR and then extracted gifs from it?

 

I already explained to you that I grabbed the first link I could find to show that it was in fact taken from the hezerkahni clip NOTHING MORE.

that said it shows precisely what I said it shows that it is in fact a section of the hezerkhani video clip

- - - Updated - - -

motion pictures are a series of gifs

 

But wasn't taken from the Hezarkhani video.

You just admitted it.

You created gifs, from a DVR recording, of a re-brodcast, of the Hezarkhani video. You didn't create those gifs from the original. So we're supposed to just trust you when you say "Oh, I have an archived video a made those gifs from".

So what makes your suppsoed video archive any better than the HD youtube video created by someone who knows what they are doing?

 

are you calling me a liar?

I admitted nothing.

if the 2001 broadcast was not from the original then where did it come from?

 

I ain't calling you late for dinner!

You said that your video was from the original. It was not. It was a copy, of a copy, of a copy. That's like me saying I made a home movie, then I took the movie from the camera and had it put on a VCR tape, then moved it to a DVD, then played it on the TV via that DVD, and then took another video of that.

After all that, I then made gifs from the TV recording, gave them to you and said these gifs were created from the original.

How many steps of compression, extraction, conversion did the "video" go through before you made the final gifs?

So based on what you just told me, what makes your "video archive" any more official than mine? Mine was created with the specs I posted from somone who knows what they are doing.

We have only your word that you have an "archive". Sorry, but you aren't to be trusted. Where's the link?

 

i already posted a compilation of videos showing the plane crash into the South Tower.

all logical and rational people accept it as incontrovertable evidence of the event.

[video=youtube;u4MROSC2UVI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MROSC2UVI[/video]

 

Liar?...no. Ignorant? yes. All those anomolies/issues are consistent with what happens when images/videos are compressed....the pixelization, the artifacting and the color swapping. Nothing fishy about it.

 

my original? no compression, no extraction, no conversion, like with freefall you are still trying to invent a way to justify yet another one of your crazy theories, it does not work that way. Thats the beauty of having equipment. all you have is the internet and proven dablundering sites LOL

 

and I already asked you which one of those clips do you think you can claim you seen a plane impact the wtc?

 

Excuse me?...no Compresssion?....so the TV statioin that broadcast that video...didn't compress it?...the person who they got it from, his device didn't comress the video when it was saved in whatever format it was?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

So, it is your claim that...all the videos and photos take of the planes crashing into the towers were faked? How is it possible to add a plane to all the photos and videos, in the right angle, contrast, lighting, focus and size for each video and photo? How was it possible to do all that within a day or so?

I do this for a living so, I know how impossible this is.

Do you realize how flawed your position is?

 

no they arent,not even close, they are however exactly what cgi blunders look like




you know when the nose comes out the other side because its improperly masked

 

Not ALL "conspiracy theorists" believe the same thing. You are putting "words" (beliefs) into other peoples mouths. That's the same tactic that is used against people who believe the book of Genesis. Their critics call them "creationists" meaning to imply that they all believe that the earth is no more than six to ten thousand years old. That is, the scoffers let on that all people who believe the Bible account of creation or in "intelligent design", are those who ascribe to the "instant earth" theory.

This ploy is used to discredit anyone who expresses the belief that the Bible was given through inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The fact is that not all people who do not believe the NIST account do not necessarily ascribe to the preposterous "no plane" theory or the theories of Judy Woods.

I believe that you understand what I am saying. The fact that you pretend not to leads me to believe that you are as much about discrediting "truthers" and suppressing evidence as those who plant these outlandish theories like the one proposed on this thread.

>>>MOD EDIT: OFF TOPIC<<<

I never denied that there were planes which crashed into the buildings. At the same time it IS possible that those planes were NOT the planes they were alleged to be. And there ARE sane explanations as to how that could be.

>>>MOD EDIT: OFF TOPIC<<<

Oh but I do dare.
But before I offer any conjectures as to the details of how this false flag attack was carried out, the evidence that there was more to the story than that which we have been told must be laid out.

How many pages did the 9/11 Report consist of? Are you not willing to allow equal space and time for alternative arguments and theories to be laid out?

In a homicide investigation, the cause of death must first be established before a determination of whether a murder was committed or not.

One must examine all the evidence to support that conclusion before charges can be brought against anyone. And probable cause for suspicion must be presented before a judge before a suspect can be hauled in and tried.

You are. When you present bogus theories which are easily discounted as being representative of all people who doubt the veracity of the 9/11 report then you are accusing others of believing things which they don't believe. When you knowingly do so in order to discredit them you are practically lying.

You haven't heard "my" story so how can you say it is ridiculous?

Rather than persisting in this line of attack, why don't we back up and begin at some point where a foundation can be laid upon which to construct a viable theory.

Or do you deny that the "19 Arabs with box cutters" THEORY sufficiently explains ALL the evidence?

I submit to you that that theory has not been proven.

No one to date as I am aware of has ever been formally charged tried or convicted.
You may recall that the Bush administration was opposed to any such investigation to begin with. No 9/11 Commission Report of any kind would ever have been conducted had it not been for the relentless public pressure to do so brought on by the families of those whose loved ones perished.
This is in contradiction to all standard protocol whenever a disaster of such proportions has occurred.

We know for instance that such LEGAL PROTOCOLS were VIOLATED from the outset in dealing with the evidence which remained at the scene of the crime.

There were all sorts of red flags like these that were raised from the very beginning which were brought up by people who were assigned to the case. So we are not talking about the protests of casual bystanders who called attention and even protested against these discrepancies. We are talking about individuals who were involved in official capacities whose protests and reports on the matters were ignored and or deliberately suppressed.

You are trying to tell us that none of this is important to consider. Since I do not believe you are that stupid I can only surmise that you are among the disinformation agents whose job it is to throw dirt on the subject and anyone who is vocal about all the instances of official misconduct which demand explanation.

The topic is long and detailed. People who are disinterested or who have short attention spans will not be able to appreciate the volume of questionable anomalies and "coincidences" that surround 9/11. It is much easier for them to either avoid the personal attacks made on them by people who wish to suppress the truth, or give up against the relentless stonewalling campaign being conducted to the same end.

As I said, all that those responsible are really hoping to do is avoid being uncovered and punished. This is what happened with the Warren Commission. In view of that, I suppose that the majority of them WILL. At the same time I DO believe that EVERYONE will have to give an account of ALL they have said and done in the day in which God judges every man. They don't believe in that. I do. It remains to be seen who is right.

 

so you dont undestand cgi after all and you need me to teach you is that it?

 

So your gifs are NOT from the original video like you claimed. It;s a "copy" of a copy" of a copy".

Got it.

So again, what makes you "archived video" any better than the HD video I presented of the same video you use? Mine shows a wing and yours does not.

 

those people belong to this group

Psychologists Say: &#8216;Conspiracy Theorists&#8217; SANE, Government Dupes CRAZY and Hostile.

Laurie Manwell, Univ of Guelph; users of the [CT], &#8220;Conspiracy Theorist&#8221; label impedes their cognitive function, published in American Behavioral Scientist 2010; anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing beliefs.

Univ of Buffalo Prof Steven Hoffman; anti-conspiracy people prone to &#8220;confirmation bias&#8221;, and pre-existing belief confirmation, using irrational mechanisms (such as the &#8220;CT&#8221; label) to avoid personal conflict.

Extreme irrationality of those who attack &#8220;CT's&#8221; is exposed by Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State Univ. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled &#8220;Dangerous Machinery: CTst as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.

Now pro-conspiracy voices are more numerous and rational than anti-conspiracy ones and anti-CT people are like hostile, paranoid cranks.

 

Ah!....Ace's "Nose in - Nose out" BULSH!!!!.....when I get a free moment I'll dump your claim.

 

are you saying that sept 2001 they aired someone elses remake NOT the hezerkahni video? Your not making any sense.