At the 8:03 mark in this video, you can clearly see the airplane wing go behind the the building to the left in the foreground! Clearly it was CGI and done in conjunction with fake MSM and put out there as the official video footage!
Definitely an inside job. What happened to the so called passengers on those phantom planes? Were they all CIA operatives and their identities changed soon after they supposedly died? Or were they actual citizens caught up in the ruse and killed by the CIA as part of their nefarious agenda?
I wondered what you were referring to. It turns out that an Anon (worth his name) did some background research regarding the plane's flight path and discovered that it indeed was behind that building. No CGI (pre-CGI). It is a simple consequence of what amounts to a telescopic picture. At a sufficiently far distance, the focal plane is the same for everything in view and it all looks like it is at the same distance. I noticed this strange effect in TV coverage of football games when I was growing up in the 1950s: the spectators in the stands looked as large as the players on the field. Distance suppresses the perspective effect.
So, wannabee "anons" can hug their conspiracy blankets and decry "CGI" when this was all before that technology was available, and a real anon dug into the picture and the flight path and discovered that the image was real.
Well, I don't happen to have that in my Roladex. The point was: the anon matched the flight path to a map with the location of major buildings and determined that the airplane did indeed fly "behind" the building that obstructed the view of the wingtip. And what was wrong with that? The uninformed viewer starts out with an incorrect assumption of the depth of the images---which is a characteristic of images taken at long distance. Normal perspective cues for distance are obliterated by the fact that the images are all at the "same" distance. There wasn't anything to "show" except his statement of what he found.
But the fact seems to be that you give creds to the credulous.
Edit: Primitive CGI was available earlier (e.g., "Tron") but the kind of CGI that we are familiar with and can expect today was not. Nor is it clear how that could be inserted into a video. But since the airplane flight path and the location of identified buildings confirms that the plane flew behind the one in question, it is moot.
Look up Logo Insertion. They could insert network logos in realtime so they could probably do a logo shaped like a plane. Show it when everyone's traumatized and it'll pass. Then hide all the video once the brainwash takes hold. Standard MK trickery.
Logos are fixed in the field of the frame. There are no moving logos, at least not in the time frame of interest.
But it is one thing to surmise, quite another to prove. There is no proof of any such manipulation, and plenty of observational, photographic, and material evidence for the collision. Your arguments are of the same form as the "We never went to the Moon" crowd. When everything is a lie---why should I believe you? And why should you believe that everything is a lie?
Where is the proof that there were no moving logos at the time?
It's established fact that the TV networks were all working with Digital TV signals, most at 1080i for the main subchannel, except I believe for FOX which was doing 720p. Digital signals enable logo insertion and all sorts of other manipulation, and the code to make it move is basic linear math. You simply refuse to imagine it. Why is that?
How big is the lie that Biden won the election? Yet people believe it. If they can lie that large then no "facts" are safe, so it's prudent to start from zero. I don't need planes for the simplest explanation. Maybe they were there, but I'm not sold on it. Same goes for the moon. Fakery and brainwash is simpler and cheaper. Same for the pandemic. Totally fake would've worked, with placebos for the jabs.
It's difficult to give up on so many "truths". But I found I can live without moon landings or the dinosaurs and not much changes. If eventually they prove truly real then I'll celebrate. But we have to turn the corner on so much else first.
The only "proof" that is relevant is proof that the image has been doctored. Accusation stemming from a prejudiced viewpoint is not evidence at all. You might as well suspect that the Twin Towers were never hit, and that they are still standing. Anything to the contrary is a carefully contrived cover.
It is clear that you embrace fakery so long as it feeds your bias confirmation. The planes were there in all 4 cases, witnessed, caused damage, and killed hundreds of people. You want to imagine that it basically did not happen and that there were gratuitious explosions from conspirators and the vanishing of hundreds of people. The fact that you can doubt the Apollo program shows that you are willing to twist everything into fakery. When you do that, you are building your world on lies...and you don't seem to realize that doing so is counter to what we are supposed to be doing.
I'm not saying we should not question, but we have to accept the real answers, or the questions are superfluous. All that seems to happen is that some of us pose a question---and answer it with a conspiracy theory, and that's the end of the question.
Every single "before and after" comparison in this video has clear editing artifacts. Yes, obvious CGI, but you can clearly tell where the planes were digitally removed from the videos.
Maybe... there is an Anon who is vehemently opposed to the CGI facts. He claims that there are eyewitnesses and other videos that show the planes. But, he never addresses the fact that original videos were bought by CNN and other MSM giants, and then doctored. And, the eyewitnesses could easily have been plants. So, his sources are at least questionable, but he never addresses the CGI facts that are in this video.
"The fact" that videos were "doctored"? How would you be able to prove that to be a fact, and not what it really is...an assumption. And where is the proof that the eyewitnesses were liars? And you have the temerity to say that "his sources are at least questionable," when all you have is sheer fantasy.
Just because you say "prove it" first does not mean that your side is accurate. Did you watch this video? Can you say one is doctored and not the other, regardless of which one? And given all that we know, I would suggest that the idea that the plane was added is more plausible, especially given all of the raw video of people saying it was an explosion and that there was no plane.
I watched samples from it. All concocted. Street people declaring what they saw, when they saw only the effect. Some idiot with an eastern European accent insisting that an airplane would behave like a brittle accordion, and that it could not penetrate the building (B-25 vs. Empire State Building to the contrary). Someone referred to the video of one airliner passing over building tops and one wingtip seemingly went behind one building (which was in fact consistent with the path of the airplane and the fact that distance perspective flattens out at long distance). Where did the "undoctored" video come from, and what is the certification that it is "undoctored"? There was a fireball from the first instant of the collision, which is unremarkable considering the airplane was fully fueled and a collision would be guaranteed to create sparks or adiabatic heating in a fuel space with ullage. People in this country have become conditioned to think that a cloud of fire signifies an explosion because Hollywood finds it more convenient to simulate them with propane than with explosives.
So, prove it. Arguing "it might have been" or "it could have been" is only fantasizing based on an ignorant view of the mechanics of such an event. The planes were commandeered and were driven into the Towers, the Pentagon, and the countryside with all passengers aboard. They are gone, and this obsession with a fantasy is a morbid trivialization of their deaths.
Not desperate, just exasperated at all the stupid ignorance. And reluctant to spent over an hour rehashing nonsense. I notice you have nothing to say against my remarks, so all you have is a personal slur of "desperation". I have noticed this time after time in these dialogues.
If the plane s/he saw only clipped the corner of the south tower then s/he must also be claiming that there was a third plane. The north tower was attacked first, the south tower second - or is s/he claiming the 767 looped around and went for a direct hit after s/he saw it fly overhead and clip the corner of the south tower?
the fact that they turned off the sound on those videos convinced me, we know how fast sound travels and we can triangulate that information from where the camaras where to no for a fact if the video was real. hmm
If you are on the ground among buildings, there will be no way to predict direction from sound, because you will be hearing echoes from the buildings. I was surprised one time near Boeing Field when an airplane was taking off, and the sound was coming from a direction completely different from where the plane was. It was reflecting from a nearby building.
For the record, I often downvote to alert the poster to the fact that he just wrote a meaningless word salad. For example "from where the camaras where to no". Three presumably misspelt words resulting in no discernible meaning.
Not when you don't hear the first sound wave or if they overlap. That's why I stated my experience. I only criticized your conclusion; I did not downvote you. (Strange tool. I am an aeronautical engineer by training and occupation.)
Rank has nothing to do with it. I had a relevant direct experience with airplane sound signature being reflected from a building, convincingly from the direction opposite to where the plane was. Therefore, your comment did not cover all cases and was, to that extent, in error. You don't need to display self-deprecation as irony. Nothing retarded about construction work. Why would you call me an insulting name?
Between the time of the first tower explosion and the time the towers fell, where are the pictures and witnesses of the hunks of plane debris and bodies on the ground? When the firemen arrived to go up the stairs to do rescue they certainly would have seen it.
The planes and passengers plunged into the buildings, where they were shredded by the structural columns. I've seen the reconstruction simulation. Very appalling. What do you think would happen? Be like a Warner Brother's cartoon where a plane goes "splat!" on the outside of the building and falls to the ground? That didn't even happen when a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building in 1945.
Ah yes......another 9/11 and the deathraydipshit finally shows up. Was wondering when you would drag your low-iq ass out of bed and start spewing your bullshit and lies on these threads.
No lies, pal. Just hard-headed realism to dispel the fanciful nonsense that destroys our credibility---which is all fine with the Black Hats. You guys are more interested in rationalizing your fantasies than understanding truth. And a sign of your weak case is the unfailing resort to insults and name-calling. Every time you do that, I know I am over the target.
Suppose (to your distaste) it all turns out to be true: the airplanes hit the Towers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside. That doesn't stop the questions about where did these guys come from, how were they trained, and who in the government gave them a pass (if anyone did). Maybe it was like Pearl Harbor, an event awaited but not specifically planned. Sometimes evil likes to play the long game and encourage an avalanche, so as to keep fingerprints from being found. And where do you think they got the idea? Look up Project Aphrodite to find a clue. Even as a young engineer in the 70s and 80s, it occurred to me that used airliners would make wonderful blockbuster cruise missiles. And they still would.
By the way this is a good video. I had never seen the footage of that launch from the building top section into the WTC. Maybe that was a missile later disguised as a plane using CGI?
This is nonsense. Airplanes don't shatter. There is too much momentum for the airplane not to penetrate BETWEEN THE COLUMNS. The man with the accent doesn't know what he is talking about, regarding airplane construction.
A kite plane … how do you fly a kite ??? Remote controlled…
This was part of the ritual done at the school where kids repeated these words in sequence while bush had a copy of my pet goat.
Still don’t believe it was a human ritual sacrifice do you?
At the 8:03 mark in this video, you can clearly see the airplane wing go behind the the building to the left in the foreground! Clearly it was CGI and done in conjunction with fake MSM and put out there as the official video footage!
Definitely an inside job. What happened to the so called passengers on those phantom planes? Were they all CIA operatives and their identities changed soon after they supposedly died? Or were they actual citizens caught up in the ruse and killed by the CIA as part of their nefarious agenda?
It never struck you as weird all those celebrities that "missed " their flight that day? I know the family guy guy has talked about it several times
I wondered what you were referring to. It turns out that an Anon (worth his name) did some background research regarding the plane's flight path and discovered that it indeed was behind that building. No CGI (pre-CGI). It is a simple consequence of what amounts to a telescopic picture. At a sufficiently far distance, the focal plane is the same for everything in view and it all looks like it is at the same distance. I noticed this strange effect in TV coverage of football games when I was growing up in the 1950s: the spectators in the stands looked as large as the players on the field. Distance suppresses the perspective effect.
So, wannabee "anons" can hug their conspiracy blankets and decry "CGI" when this was all before that technology was available, and a real anon dug into the picture and the flight path and discovered that the image was real.
An anon worth his name… please provide sauce… we don’t give creds to spoofs. Show his proofs
Well, I don't happen to have that in my Roladex. The point was: the anon matched the flight path to a map with the location of major buildings and determined that the airplane did indeed fly "behind" the building that obstructed the view of the wingtip. And what was wrong with that? The uninformed viewer starts out with an incorrect assumption of the depth of the images---which is a characteristic of images taken at long distance. Normal perspective cues for distance are obliterated by the fact that the images are all at the "same" distance. There wasn't anything to "show" except his statement of what he found.
But the fact seems to be that you give creds to the credulous.
Edit: Primitive CGI was available earlier (e.g., "Tron") but the kind of CGI that we are familiar with and can expect today was not. Nor is it clear how that could be inserted into a video. But since the airplane flight path and the location of identified buildings confirms that the plane flew behind the one in question, it is moot.
Look up Logo Insertion. They could insert network logos in realtime so they could probably do a logo shaped like a plane. Show it when everyone's traumatized and it'll pass. Then hide all the video once the brainwash takes hold. Standard MK trickery.
Logos are fixed in the field of the frame. There are no moving logos, at least not in the time frame of interest.
But it is one thing to surmise, quite another to prove. There is no proof of any such manipulation, and plenty of observational, photographic, and material evidence for the collision. Your arguments are of the same form as the "We never went to the Moon" crowd. When everything is a lie---why should I believe you? And why should you believe that everything is a lie?
Where is the proof that there were no moving logos at the time?
It's established fact that the TV networks were all working with Digital TV signals, most at 1080i for the main subchannel, except I believe for FOX which was doing 720p. Digital signals enable logo insertion and all sorts of other manipulation, and the code to make it move is basic linear math. You simply refuse to imagine it. Why is that?
How big is the lie that Biden won the election? Yet people believe it. If they can lie that large then no "facts" are safe, so it's prudent to start from zero. I don't need planes for the simplest explanation. Maybe they were there, but I'm not sold on it. Same goes for the moon. Fakery and brainwash is simpler and cheaper. Same for the pandemic. Totally fake would've worked, with placebos for the jabs.
It's difficult to give up on so many "truths". But I found I can live without moon landings or the dinosaurs and not much changes. If eventually they prove truly real then I'll celebrate. But we have to turn the corner on so much else first.
exactly!
The only "proof" that is relevant is proof that the image has been doctored. Accusation stemming from a prejudiced viewpoint is not evidence at all. You might as well suspect that the Twin Towers were never hit, and that they are still standing. Anything to the contrary is a carefully contrived cover.
It is clear that you embrace fakery so long as it feeds your bias confirmation. The planes were there in all 4 cases, witnessed, caused damage, and killed hundreds of people. You want to imagine that it basically did not happen and that there were gratuitious explosions from conspirators and the vanishing of hundreds of people. The fact that you can doubt the Apollo program shows that you are willing to twist everything into fakery. When you do that, you are building your world on lies...and you don't seem to realize that doing so is counter to what we are supposed to be doing.
I'm not saying we should not question, but we have to accept the real answers, or the questions are superfluous. All that seems to happen is that some of us pose a question---and answer it with a conspiracy theory, and that's the end of the question.
So the Apollo program is your sacred cow? No doubts allowed? Why?
Or some of each?
A wing falls off. Engine plummets. But 100% of the entire plane goes into the building? Both times?
https://www.nydailynews.com/2023/07/27/remembering-the-1945-empire-state-building-plane-crash/ See 12th picture. Debris on the road below. And the Twin Towers had structural steel on the outside, unlike the Empire State Bldg.
Every single "before and after" comparison in this video has clear editing artifacts. Yes, obvious CGI, but you can clearly tell where the planes were digitally removed from the videos.
There is no way past,
"The Nose Out Shot."
<[]~
Where's the CGI-denier? He is always askingfor proof. This video presents the proof.
Maybe... there is an Anon who is vehemently opposed to the CGI facts. He claims that there are eyewitnesses and other videos that show the planes. But, he never addresses the fact that original videos were bought by CNN and other MSM giants, and then doctored. And, the eyewitnesses could easily have been plants. So, his sources are at least questionable, but he never addresses the CGI facts that are in this video.
"The fact" that videos were "doctored"? How would you be able to prove that to be a fact, and not what it really is...an assumption. And where is the proof that the eyewitnesses were liars? And you have the temerity to say that "his sources are at least questionable," when all you have is sheer fantasy.
Just because you say "prove it" first does not mean that your side is accurate. Did you watch this video? Can you say one is doctored and not the other, regardless of which one? And given all that we know, I would suggest that the idea that the plane was added is more plausible, especially given all of the raw video of people saying it was an explosion and that there was no plane.
I watched samples from it. All concocted. Street people declaring what they saw, when they saw only the effect. Some idiot with an eastern European accent insisting that an airplane would behave like a brittle accordion, and that it could not penetrate the building (B-25 vs. Empire State Building to the contrary). Someone referred to the video of one airliner passing over building tops and one wingtip seemingly went behind one building (which was in fact consistent with the path of the airplane and the fact that distance perspective flattens out at long distance). Where did the "undoctored" video come from, and what is the certification that it is "undoctored"? There was a fireball from the first instant of the collision, which is unremarkable considering the airplane was fully fueled and a collision would be guaranteed to create sparks or adiabatic heating in a fuel space with ullage. People in this country have become conditioned to think that a cloud of fire signifies an explosion because Hollywood finds it more convenient to simulate them with propane than with explosives.
So, prove it. Arguing "it might have been" or "it could have been" is only fantasizing based on an ignorant view of the mechanics of such an event. The planes were commandeered and were driven into the Towers, the Pentagon, and the countryside with all passengers aboard. They are gone, and this obsession with a fantasy is a morbid trivialization of their deaths.
You sound so desperate to be right. I am not. I can agree to disagree. I wish you well.
Not desperate, just exasperated at all the stupid ignorance. And reluctant to spent over an hour rehashing nonsense. I notice you have nothing to say against my remarks, so all you have is a personal slur of "desperation". I have noticed this time after time in these dialogues.
If the plane s/he saw only clipped the corner of the south tower then s/he must also be claiming that there was a third plane. The north tower was attacked first, the south tower second - or is s/he claiming the 767 looped around and went for a direct hit after s/he saw it fly overhead and clip the corner of the south tower?
the fact that they turned off the sound on those videos convinced me, we know how fast sound travels and we can triangulate that information from where the camaras where to no for a fact if the video was real. hmm
If you are on the ground among buildings, there will be no way to predict direction from sound, because you will be hearing echoes from the buildings. I was surprised one time near Boeing Field when an airplane was taking off, and the sound was coming from a direction completely different from where the plane was. It was reflecting from a nearby building.
i disagree, you can distinguish an echo from the first sound wave. why would you dislike my comment? what a tool
For the record, I often downvote to alert the poster to the fact that he just wrote a meaningless word salad. For example "from where the camaras where to no". Three presumably misspelt words resulting in no discernible meaning.
(I didn't downvote on this occasion.)
Not when you don't hear the first sound wave or if they overlap. That's why I stated my experience. I only criticized your conclusion; I did not downvote you. (Strange tool. I am an aeronautical engineer by training and occupation.)
ok ok fine you out rank me, i am just some half retarded autistic construction worker
Rank has nothing to do with it. I had a relevant direct experience with airplane sound signature being reflected from a building, convincingly from the direction opposite to where the plane was. Therefore, your comment did not cover all cases and was, to that extent, in error. You don't need to display self-deprecation as irony. Nothing retarded about construction work. Why would you call me an insulting name?
You sound like an asshole, I still disagree with your analysis.
You sound like someone who has nothing to say in your own defense except insults. It ALWAYS means you have lost the argument (in your own head).
Between the time of the first tower explosion and the time the towers fell, where are the pictures and witnesses of the hunks of plane debris and bodies on the ground? When the firemen arrived to go up the stairs to do rescue they certainly would have seen it.
The planes and passengers plunged into the buildings, where they were shredded by the structural columns. I've seen the reconstruction simulation. Very appalling. What do you think would happen? Be like a Warner Brother's cartoon where a plane goes "splat!" on the outside of the building and falls to the ground? That didn't even happen when a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building in 1945.
Ah yes......another 9/11 and the deathraydipshit finally shows up. Was wondering when you would drag your low-iq ass out of bed and start spewing your bullshit and lies on these threads.
No lies, pal. Just hard-headed realism to dispel the fanciful nonsense that destroys our credibility---which is all fine with the Black Hats. You guys are more interested in rationalizing your fantasies than understanding truth. And a sign of your weak case is the unfailing resort to insults and name-calling. Every time you do that, I know I am over the target.
Suppose (to your distaste) it all turns out to be true: the airplanes hit the Towers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside. That doesn't stop the questions about where did these guys come from, how were they trained, and who in the government gave them a pass (if anyone did). Maybe it was like Pearl Harbor, an event awaited but not specifically planned. Sometimes evil likes to play the long game and encourage an avalanche, so as to keep fingerprints from being found. And where do you think they got the idea? Look up Project Aphrodite to find a clue. Even as a young engineer in the 70s and 80s, it occurred to me that used airliners would make wonderful blockbuster cruise missiles. And they still would.
What kind of deathrays have you designed?
My last hurrah (rewrote and edited the winning proposal for) was YAL-1A.
By the way this is a good video. I had never seen the footage of that launch from the building top section into the WTC. Maybe that was a missile later disguised as a plane using CGI?
This is nonsense. Airplanes don't shatter. There is too much momentum for the airplane not to penetrate BETWEEN THE COLUMNS. The man with the accent doesn't know what he is talking about, regarding airplane construction.