"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********
"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"
And today's clue for allcomers to debunk is...
Yes, that's right, Ladies & Gents... :
Ah, well I hope you're all familiar with the "Pinocchio Nose", folks...
NOSED OUT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
It was aired on WNYWFOX5 on 9/11 and was, thankfully, home-recorded on VHS-tapes by some American families. Later, the perps must have realized it wasn't such a good idea to leave it on their archives for our children to laugh at:
FOXED OUT part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzCW197AqpM
FOXED OUT part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LURV-joLI
The "beauty" of it all is that a few frames of the dreadful NOSE-OUT shot are, in fact, STILL IMPRINTED FOR ETERNITY IN THE CURRENT FOX ARCHIVES !!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Awww, the tricks & traps of cross-fading will haunt them forever...
EXPLANATION OF ABOVE FRAME: What we see here is a moment from the official FOX 9/11 archives (which were hastily remixed to cover up the "Nose-Out" fiasco). As they replay one of their "planecrash" video clips ("THE BLUE SHOT"), there is a cross-fade transition which reveals - for a fraction of a second - a few frames of the "NOSE-OUT" clip. So what we see above are 2 super-imposed videotracks with 2 'planes' (the left one's from the "Blue Shot", the right one's from the Nose-Out shot"). Anyone familiar with multitrack video-editing should grasp how this happened: please watch FOXED OUT part2 for a better understanding of the issue.
So today's challenge (N°8) is...
PROVE THAT THE NOSE-OUT IS:
- A REAL 767 cockpit emerging intact from the WTC
- DUST/DEBRIS emerging from the WTC
"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"
And today's clue for allcomers to debunk is...
Yes, that's right, Ladies & Gents... :
Ah, well I hope you're all familiar with the "Pinocchio Nose", folks...
NOSED OUT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
It was aired on WNYWFOX5 on 9/11 and was, thankfully, home-recorded on VHS-tapes by some American families. Later, the perps must have realized it wasn't such a good idea to leave it on their archives for our children to laugh at:
FOXED OUT part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzCW197AqpM
FOXED OUT part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LURV-joLI
The "beauty" of it all is that a few frames of the dreadful NOSE-OUT shot are, in fact, STILL IMPRINTED FOR ETERNITY IN THE CURRENT FOX ARCHIVES !!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Awww, the tricks & traps of cross-fading will haunt them forever...
EXPLANATION OF ABOVE FRAME: What we see here is a moment from the official FOX 9/11 archives (which were hastily remixed to cover up the "Nose-Out" fiasco). As they replay one of their "planecrash" video clips ("THE BLUE SHOT"), there is a cross-fade transition which reveals - for a fraction of a second - a few frames of the "NOSE-OUT" clip. So what we see above are 2 super-imposed videotracks with 2 'planes' (the left one's from the "Blue Shot", the right one's from the Nose-Out shot"). Anyone familiar with multitrack video-editing should grasp how this happened: please watch FOXED OUT part2 for a better understanding of the issue.
So today's challenge (N°8) is...
PROVE THAT THE NOSE-OUT IS:
- A REAL 767 cockpit emerging intact from the WTC
- DUST/DEBRIS emerging from the WTC
http://www.septemberclues.org
Simon, you naughty little disinfo agent.
You have proved yourself its a perfect match so whats your problem?
"Frame 15" you can clearly see flight 175 is about to hit the tower.
"Frame 38" you have a perfect match of the same flight 175.
Thanks to 9/11 the United States Air Force are no longer using F-16, F-18 fighter jets because of their fragile cockpit, they are since 9/11 using Boeing 767 as fighters jets because of their, on 9/11 proven strong cockpits.
The result is that no air force pilot has been killed in a crash since 9/11 because of the strong Boeing 767 cockpit.
All pilot flight training is done in Cessnas cos jet training is no longer needed and the air force has cut cost by 1 gazillion.
The stealth bombers are also no longer needed cos the Boeing 767 have been proven not only invisible to radar, but also invisible to cameras as shown in the NBC Chopper 4 footage.
Thanks
John"The Dive Bomber"
You have proved yourself its a perfect match so whats your problem?
"Frame 15" you can clearly see flight 175 is about to hit the tower.
"Frame 38" you have a perfect match of the same flight 175.
Thanks to 9/11 the United States Air Force are no longer using F-16, F-18 fighter jets because of their fragile cockpit, they are since 9/11 using Boeing 767 as fighters jets because of their, on 9/11 proven strong cockpits.
The result is that no air force pilot has been killed in a crash since 9/11 because of the strong Boeing 767 cockpit.
All pilot flight training is done in Cessnas cos jet training is no longer needed and the air force has cut cost by 1 gazillion.
The stealth bombers are also no longer needed cos the Boeing 767 have been proven not only invisible to radar, but also invisible to cameras as shown in the NBC Chopper 4 footage.
Thanks
John"The Dive Bomber"
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Simon, I would like to debunk the speed of the airplanes in your video.
You obviously didn't know that a twin jet intake wide bodied craft like a 767 can't pack any more air through its turbines after 500 mph so close to the dense air of 1,000 ft. above sea level and therefore cannot possibly be going 550 mph.
You must have sped up all the videos by 10% or removed frames to make all the side shots of the airplanes make it appear as though the airplane is traveling a physically impossible speed.
I have not checked the archives to see if your samples actually play at the same rate, but I am certain that you have removed or skipped frames or somehow created the illusion that the airplane is going at an impossible speed even though your video is easily comparable to the original. You must have sped up the video because you are an idiot.
Why do you always set up straw man arguments to tear down, Simon? Why? :rolleyes:
You obviously didn't know that a twin jet intake wide bodied craft like a 767 can't pack any more air through its turbines after 500 mph so close to the dense air of 1,000 ft. above sea level and therefore cannot possibly be going 550 mph.
You must have sped up all the videos by 10% or removed frames to make all the side shots of the airplanes make it appear as though the airplane is traveling a physically impossible speed.
I have not checked the archives to see if your samples actually play at the same rate, but I am certain that you have removed or skipped frames or somehow created the illusion that the airplane is going at an impossible speed even though your video is easily comparable to the original. You must have sped up the video because you are an idiot.
Why do you always set up straw man arguments to tear down, Simon? Why? :rolleyes:
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********
"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"
And today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :
Here we have a series of 9/11 shots supposedly captured by 5 different cameras - and credited to:
- Robert Clark
- Wolfgang Staehle
- Tina Cart
- CBS
- The Naudet brothers
So today's challenge (N°9) is...
- Calculate the amount (in or in your local currency) of copyright damages a court of law would generate if all of these 5 "authors" decided to sue each other for authorship theft.
- Alternatively, calculate the fees of the attorneys of each of these 5 "authors" attempting to prove that each one of them actually authored these 5 shots.
- If you're no accountant, just account for the credibility of these 5 shots.
"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"
And today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :
Here we have a series of 9/11 shots supposedly captured by 5 different cameras - and credited to:
- Robert Clark
- Wolfgang Staehle
- Tina Cart
- CBS
- The Naudet brothers
So today's challenge (N°9) is...
- Calculate the amount (in or in your local currency) of copyright damages a court of law would generate if all of these 5 "authors" decided to sue each other for authorship theft.
- Alternatively, calculate the fees of the attorneys of each of these 5 "authors" attempting to prove that each one of them actually authored these 5 shots.
- If you're no accountant, just account for the credibility of these 5 shots.
http://www.septemberclues.org
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Smokey scores 20 points towards a free ride on NASA's next mission to Mars for making me crack up.SmokingGunII 4 Aug 3 2010, 07:06 PM wrote: This is one of the easier clips to explain. They were all good friends stood on the same balcony, you can even hear Tina shout out "Oh my God" when Wolfgang treads on her toes.
I can picture the scene:
Tina - "OUCH! OMG !"
Wolfgang - "ACH, MEIN GOTT! ENTSCHULDIGUNG, FRAU TINA!
Robert Clark: " DOLORES! BRING SOME ICE FOR TINA'S FOOT!!!"
http://www.septemberclues.org
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********
"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"
Aaand today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :
********VOTE THE DUMBEST COMPUTER ANIMATION********
- LEFT VIDEO CLIP by Simon Shack
- RIGHT VIDEO CLIP by Someone Else
So today's challenge (N°10) is...
Point out the reasons why you would give your thumbs-down pooh-pooh- vote
to either of these 2 clips for being the most unrealistic and artificial-looking.
"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"
Aaand today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :
********VOTE THE DUMBEST COMPUTER ANIMATION********
- LEFT VIDEO CLIP by Simon Shack
- RIGHT VIDEO CLIP by Someone Else
So today's challenge (N°10) is...
Point out the reasons why you would give your thumbs-down pooh-pooh- vote
to either of these 2 clips for being the most unrealistic and artificial-looking.
http://www.septemberclues.org
Besides the fact the plane in the right hand video travels the at the same speed whether through air or concrete and steel?
Just time the plane as the nose gets to the edge of the building on the left (the black one) to just before "impact" with the building on the right, just as the tail reaches the edge of the black building. Then time it again as it fly into and dissappears into the white building on the right. Both times will be the same, indicating that the white building (WTC2) is offering no resistance, atleast no more resistance than air does, to the plane. The plane never changes speed in the slightest, so there is no loss of momentum. Momentum would have to be transferred to the building at initial impact, and all subsequent impacts, and the plane would have to be slowed down so that not all of the plane would have made it into the building. Also, being made of weaker materials, the plane would have taken the brunt of the impact and actually been damaged far mor than the building was.
Therefore I concluded that the videos are fake because the building is fake. It must have been put in the video after it was taken and would explain why it offered no resistance. Imaginary things don't offer resistance.
On a side note, since there has been nearly no rebutals to the vicsim report, except for the occasional "I knew this person, they exsisted", and then never heard from again, I stand by my statement, imaginary things don't offer resistance.
Just time the plane as the nose gets to the edge of the building on the left (the black one) to just before "impact" with the building on the right, just as the tail reaches the edge of the black building. Then time it again as it fly into and dissappears into the white building on the right. Both times will be the same, indicating that the white building (WTC2) is offering no resistance, atleast no more resistance than air does, to the plane. The plane never changes speed in the slightest, so there is no loss of momentum. Momentum would have to be transferred to the building at initial impact, and all subsequent impacts, and the plane would have to be slowed down so that not all of the plane would have made it into the building. Also, being made of weaker materials, the plane would have taken the brunt of the impact and actually been damaged far mor than the building was.
Therefore I concluded that the videos are fake because the building is fake. It must have been put in the video after it was taken and would explain why it offered no resistance. Imaginary things don't offer resistance.
On a side note, since there has been nearly no rebutals to the vicsim report, except for the occasional "I knew this person, they exsisted", and then never heard from again, I stand by my statement, imaginary things don't offer resistance.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Wow. Here I was hoping to go to Mars, but I think your comment/praise was a much better reward. Thank you.simonshack @ Aug 4 2010, 10:19 PM wrote: Postal44 ( a.k.a. "Down-to-Earth") does not score any points towards the next NASA mission to Mars because we need him to stay with us - right here on Planet Earth.