Not another 911 thread

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Because someone edited it out? Because it's a cruddy lo-res video from an unknown source and unknown generation? Why not ask the explanation for the visible plane in the first clip? The unedited live streams from CBS, CNN, and NBC are available to view on archive.org in somewhat better quality than either of thse clips (I posted the link earlier). The plane is visible in those. As indeed the plane was visible to people on the ground - some of whom videoed and photographed the plane - here's another link to mull over: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175

Wrong. It is from the archives. The plane is not visible in them all.

911 myths your bible ?

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

**** compression probably.

But lets get this straight. you're claiming that they somehow added in an image into a live feed only to then cut away before the plane hits, then remove said image from subsequent showings?
Why does this make sense to you?

Jeez dude. Dont you listen to anything ?

Watch it this time or get off the thread.

How do you expect to debate this when you ignore 50% of the information put forward ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXda5Kn2LAM

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Jeez dude. Dont you listen to anything ?

Watch it this time or get off the thread.

How do you expect to debate this when you ignore 50% of the information put forward ??

Because I'm not arsed to waste the time and bandwidth with more examples of people failing to identify video compression and drawing ridiculous conclusions from it.

Why not just explain it in a few words?

If we just kept linking you a video over and over again we wouldn't hear the end of it.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Wrong. It is from the archives. The plane is not visible in them all.

911 myths your bible ?

Neither of those videos is from archive.org - which has the original/as broadcast footage - in quality better than either of those youtube vids (which again - you don't know the source of).

The videos on 911 myths are labeled with their sources - take up any problems with the video originators.

Bog Warrior

King Mob wrote: »

Let's take an example.


Now can you please show me the difference between this statement which I've just made up is any way different from yours?

Unbelievable! They should have taught you this in school

hear·say –noun 1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.

fab·ri·ca·tion –noun 2.
something fabricated, esp. an untruthful statement: His account of the robbery is a complete fabrication.

I am finished discussing this with you.

King Mob

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Unbelievable! They should have taught you this in school

hear·say –noun 1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.

fab·ri·ca·tion –noun 2.
something fabricated, esp. an untruthful statement: His account of the robbery is a complete fabrication.

I am finished discussing this with you.

Now you see you provided nothing to support your "hearsay" not even the video you claim to have seen, let alone any of the facts you claim it has.
I likewise provided nothing to support my statement.
So to an outside observer it is indistinguishable from making stuff up.

And so rather than address my points, answer my questions or at the very least post the video you claimed to have seen, you instead decide to engage in pedantry, then get in a huff about engaging said pedantry.

So really you first refused to discuss with me back when you ignored my points...

Bog Warrior

King Mob wrote: »

Now you see you provided nothing to support your "hearsay" not even the video you claim to have seen, let alone any of the facts you claim it has.
I likewise provided nothing to support my statement.
So to an outside observer it is indistinguishable from making stuff up.

And so rather than address my points, answer my questions or at the very least post the video you claimed to have seen, you instead decide to engage in pedantry, then get in a huff about engaging said pedantry.

So really you first refused to discuss with me back when you ignored my points...

I shared the info I saw in a video, you can look into that and research it if you want to, as I said. You dragged me into the pedantry, I am dragging myself out.

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Neither of those videos is from archive.org - which has the original/as broadcast footage - in quality better than either of those youtube vids (which again - you don't know the source of).

The videos on 911 myths are labeled with their sources - take up any problems with the video originators.

Here is the first clip you say is not on archive.org @ 31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912




Here is CNN recorded live tv with missing Frames (fade to black). Unfortunate timing @ 14:50
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

TalkieWalkie

Bog Warrior wrote: »

I shared the info I saw in a video, you can look into that and research it if you want to, as I said. You dragged me into the pedantry, I am dragging myself out.

King Mob cant afford to waste his time or bandwidth on evidence. It's pointless debating with him.

King Mob

Bog Warrior wrote: »

I shared the info I saw in a video, you can look into that and research it if you want to, as I said. You dragged me into the pedantry, I am dragging myself out.

So I can take that as a no on addressing my points?

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

King Mob cant afford to waste his time or bandwidth on evidence. It's pointless debating with him.

Or you could point out exactly how and when your video addresses any of my questions?
I mean if it's irrefutable and all why is that so hard for you to do?

TalkieWalkie

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is the first clip you say is not on archive.org @ 31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912




Here is CNN recorded live tv with missing Frames (fade to black). Unfortunate timing @ 14:50
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

Here is the second clip you stated is not on archive.com

No plane @ 33:00
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is the first clip you say is not on archive.org @ 31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

I posted a link to this earlier - higher quality than your clips and, yep, approaching plane visible.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is CNN recorded live tv with missing Frames (fade to black). Unfortunate timing @ 14:50
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

And what's that we see there too? Surely not a plane!?

TalkieWalkie

Again

Play simultaneously.

One has a plane, one does not. Same time, same angle. Both on archive.org

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JYkZXxsfk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60KPOhRgb2Q

The argument was, these are from an unknown source.

Here are the sources, from archive.org - recommended by a skeppie.


Plane at @31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

No plane @ 40:00
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is the second clip you stated is not on archive.com

Eh? I said the two clips you posted weren't from archive.org - which they were not. And that the live footage at archive.org showed the plane, which they do.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No plane @ 33:00
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

Given that the plane hits at 14:56, nope.

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Eh? I said the two clips you posted weren't from archive.org - which they were not. And that the live footage at archive.org showed the plane, which they do.



Given that the plane hits at 14:56, nope.

is there something wrong with you ?

Again

Play simultaneously.

One has a plane, one does not. Same time, same angle. Both on archive.org

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JYkZXxsfk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60KPOhRgb2Q

The argument was, these are from an unknown source.

Here are the sources, from archive.org - recommended by a skeppie.


Plane at @31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

No plane @ 40:00
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No plane @ 40:00
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

Ehh - aside from the plane that's visible? (40:05)

Like I say - the unedited archive.org footage shows the plane.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here are the sources, from archive.org - recommended by a skeppie.


Plane at @31:50
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

No plane @ 40:00
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

Plane visible in both. Observation fail! :P
Also note that these are different vids, and better quality than those in the thread (which are not from archive.org).

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Ehh - aside from the plane that's visible? (40:05)

Like I say - the unedited archive.org footage shows the plane.

No plane here @ 40:00
Just an explosion

http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

thecommander

So let just say for the craic that there was no plane in the video. Are the video editors, CG artists, news staff, reporters, researchers, cameramen in on this aswell?

TalkieWalkie

Incidentally, The sky in that footage is white/grey. Whereas in this it is vibrant blue...
Could it be the same day ? same sky ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No plane here @ 40:00
Just an explosion

http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

The plane is clearly visible. @ 40:07 Just as the feed changes.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Incidentally, The sky in that footage is white/grey. Whereas in this it is vibrant blue...
Could it be the same day ? same sky ?

Different camera at a different angle with different lighting conditions.

What do you suggest it is? That they built a full scale model of the towers to blow up?

TalkieWalkie

thecommander wrote: »

So let just say for the craic that there was no plane in the video. Are the video editors, CG artists, news staff, reporters, researchers, cameramen in on this aswell?

It would appear that the folks on the phone are in on it. Many of the reporters didn't see planes, just explosions (they repeat what they are told). It's the folks on the phones who mention planes.

thecommander

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It would appear that the folks on the phone are in on it. Many of the reporters didn't see planes, just explosions. It's the folks on the phones who mention planes.

So they're in on it too?

What about all the eyewitnesses who saw it too? Are they in on it?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No plane here @ 40:00
Just an explosion

http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

Look again. At 40:00 there's the end of the impact from the first replay of the plane hitting (with a visible plane, natch), then there's a cut to the replay of the plane approaching from the helicopter shot at 40:06 - where the approaching plane is visible, flies behind building, and then explodes out the front.

I can see it, and I'm pretty sure anyone else can.

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Incidentally, The sky in that footage is white/grey. Whereas in this it is vibrant blue...
Could it be the same day ? same sky ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8

Different cameras with different calibrated colour balances.

This is just desperate

TalkieWalkie

thecommander wrote: »

So they're in on it too?

What about all the eyewitnesses who saw it too? Are they in on it?

very few eyewitnesses stated they saw a plane crash into the building. They saw a small plane, they saw an explosion.
Some planted folk shouted "a plane crashed into the building".
Other folk copied them, then everyone was shouting it...
People convinced themselves they saw it happening. Liars on the new backed it up etc etc
It's a clever trick, very clever

alastair

So what have we learned?

All the live unedited TV broadcasts showed the plane approaching the building, followed by a big explosion and a hole in the building. Now common sense might dictate a connection between the two, as would evidence of bits of said plane scattered all over the place, but seemingly it was a fraud perpetrated by some people on the phone duping new anchors.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Different cameras with different calibrated colour balances.

This is just desperate

Diogenie to the rescue. He stays quiet until a video camera question arises. The whole world knows by now you know about video cameras lmfao. But it stops there.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

very few eyewitnesses stated they saw a plane crash into the building. They saw a small plane, they saw an explosion.
Some planted folk shouted "a plane crashed into the building".
Other folk copied them, then everyone was shouting it...
People convinced themselves they saw it happening. Liars on the new backed it up etc etc
It's a clever trick, very clever

Check out the trickery:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqo4oh-AzU

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

So what have we learned?

oh look, it's a picture of a wheel.

I guess the official story was correct.

My name is URL

The whole no-plane idea is a bit nuts imho.. I know people who were in New York at the time and witnessed the second plane hitting.. unless they collectively imagined it then I couldn't possibly question it

Even the majority of 9/11 'truthers' despise the idea of there being no planes involved

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Diogenie to the rescue. He stays quiet until a video camera question arises. The whole world knows by now you know about video cameras lmfao. But it stops there.

Have we moved on from the visible invisble plane then?

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

very few eyewitnesses stated they saw a plane crash into the building. They saw a small plane, they saw an explosion.
Some planted folk shouted "a plane crashed into the building".
Other folk copied them, then everyone was shouting it...
People convinced themselves they saw it happening. Liars on the new backed it up etc etc
It's a clever trick, very clever

And no doubt you have no problem believing a missile hit the pentagon cause people said "It was like a missile."

I take it you're ignoring the fact your video nonsense has been blown out of the water?

TalkieWalkie

My name is URL wrote: »

The whole no-plane idea is a bit nuts imho.. I know people who were in New York at the time and witnessed the second plane hitting.. unless they collectively imagined it then I couldn't possibly question it

Even the majority of 9/11 'truthers' despise the idea of there being no planes involved

Yeah, it's a pretty out there theory.

But when I look at video evidence that shows no plane hitting the building when it exploded. I wonder

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

oh look, it's a picture of a wheel.

I guess the official story was correct.

So - it's off a hotdog cart, or another element in the grand conspiracy - someone planted it here while the 'faked screamers' were doing their thing?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yeah, it's a pretty out there theory.

But when I look at video evidence that shows no plane hitting the building when it exploded. I wonder

Well if you insist on not seeing a visible plane in a video you claim shows none, there's not a lot can be done to your 'theory' Damn your lying eyes!

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yeah, it's a pretty out there theory.

But when I look at video evidence that shows no plane hitting the building when it exploded. I wonder

But the videos you posted all show a plane hitting the building.

All the other videos all show the same thing.

The nearest you have is one video with really bad compression which when shown in higher resolution show the plane.

This is just sad.

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

And no doubt you have no problem believing a missile hit the pentagon cause people said "It was like a missile."

I take it you're ignoring the fact your video nonsense has been blown out of the water?

it has ?


If you can explain to me how the impact of a large jet left a 16 foot hole in the pentagon, I would happily reconsider my view on it.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

it has ?


If you can explain to me how the impact of a large jet left a 16 foot hole in the pentagon, I would happily reconsider my view on it.

I take you have moved on then. You're welcome.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

it has ?


If you can explain to me how the impact of a large jet left a 16 foot hole in the pentagon, I would happily reconsider my view on it.

Well yea. You main point has been totally refuted and shown to be completely ridiculous.

And considering you are now reverting the usual toofer tactic of throwing out red herrings and nonsequiters when backed into a corner....

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Check out the trickery:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqo4oh-AzU

Ha ha, ya gotta laugh

Good acting

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ha ha, ya gotta laugh

Good acting

Laugh it up tinfoil boy - I know who I'm laughing at.

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Well yea. You main point has been totally refuted and shown to be completely ridiculous.

And considering you are now reverting the usual toofer tactic of throwing out red herrings and nonsequiters when backed into a corner....

I showed 2 clips. 1 has a plane, the other doesnt.

your man said those clips are not on archive.org

I found them both on archive.org

They are exactly as I stated.

How does that blow my theory out of the water..?

Actually, forget it. You don't seem to cave a clue what is going on here.
Dont talk to me again.

thecommander

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ha ha, ya gotta laugh

You do?

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Laugh it up tinfoil boy - I know who I'm laughing at.

alistair (chuckle). I am delighted you know who your laughing at. You should celebrate or something

TalkieWalkie

thecommander wrote: »

You do?

I do

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I showed 2 clips. 1 has a plane, the other doesnt.

your man said those clips are not on archive.org

I found them both on archive.org

They are exactly as I stated.

How does that blow my theory out of the water..?

That's not quite what happened
But when you did finally point out the clips on archive.org, they both clearly show a plane.

You can't show a single other example of no plane hitting.
And now you have to rely on stuff like "the sky is blue in this one."

So yea, blow out of the water.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Actually, forget it. You don't seem to cave a clue what is going on here.
Dont talk to me again.

Yea, we wouldn't want you to start questioning your beliefs or anything.
Sorry for asking hard questions...

nullzero

Am I alone in thinking this thread has run its course?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

alistair (chuckle). I am delighted you know who your laughing at. You should celebrate or something

Beats laughing at a bunch of people being flown into a building. But maybe that's just me.