Vinnie replies: "Holy moly! I see smoke gushing out of the side of the WTC! - just like on TV! But in that TV picture there seems to be an earthquake raging in New York too!!! "
What was aired on NBC - LIVE on 9/11:
Come on, of course the simplest way to do it, and the only way to guarantee that all the eye witnesses and their analogue cameras saw the same thing that everyone else saw would be to use real video with CGI planes. Why are you so inflexible on this? Your work exposed the crime of the century, why must ALL of it be fake? Can't you see how that helps the perps?
Are you saying there was no real video used at all? Was everything, including all the allegedly amateur footage...everything was digital? No real footage at all?
Yes for the millionth time Yankee... You don't have to agree but we all do .
Okay...I just wanted to be clear. Regardless how much easier it is to manipulate real footage there was no digitized, real footage whatsoever. Nothing from any amateurs, nothing from any analogue cameras. Everything about 9/11 in the public domain is like Google earth. Everything we see everywhere is a model, zero real footage, all pure digital modelings.
I can't see that there would really be a need to create a gash in the building.
How many people would actually be able to see or get a good view of the World trade Centres on 9/11?
I'm only a couple of km away from my closest high rise at the moment. I can clearly see the buildings, but if anything was going down there, the detail wouldn't clear at all.
Wouldn't the view in the built up area of NY city be obscured by other buildings, unless people were high enough up in another high rise with a direct view?
There used to be a tall building in Brisbane, that had a huge digital clock placed on the top of it which was meant to be convenient for the general public to see. However, the reality was that as the city became more and more built up, even with less tall buildings, there were hardly any places from ground level that you could look up to the buildings direction and actually see the clock. It may still be there for all I know.
How much of NY city was evacuated or closed off? I know when I've been in areas where there's supposedly been a bomb scare, it's been impossible to get anywhere near close enough to get a look at what's going on, and the police move people on anyway if it looks like groups of people are assembling. And the first thing people do is call their friends to see if they've see or heard anything whilst running off and look at the tv to see if there's any news of what's happening there
For violating the rule against defensive, repetitive questions and comments, for asking silly rhetorical questions, and most importantly for insisting that the images/videos were real to some extent - but not offering any proof - not to mention moderating a perp forum, this yankee persona should have been banned days ago.
fbenario wrote:For violating the rule against defensive, repetitive questions and comments, for asking silly rhetorical questions, and most importantly for insisting that the images/videos were real to some extent - but not offering any proof - not to mention moderating a perp forum, this yankee persona should have been banned days ago.
What does this mean?
Do you discourage questions?
I certainly have provided proof...photographs, but your denizens were kind enough to correct my ways. Is it a crime to be incredulous?
With no photographic evidence whatsoever we're reduced to comparing speculations. Boy, isn't that a relief. I was afraid this 9/11 truth thing would go on forever.
I believe the damage evidence is real, not CGI. I take it you and everyone on this forum takes the stand that these images are all pure CGI. If so, why?
Take a close look at the smoke and fire on this pic. Besides from the fact that it doesn't look real, there is an old Chinese saying, something about "There are no straight lines in nature." I've noticed in a few of the 9/11 shots, that the smoke and / or flames have an edge that is much to straight to be real, this shot included. I'm looking at the patch of fire outside the building between the 6th and 7th columns from the left.
That a close look at the smoke and fire on this pic. Besides from the fact that it doesn't look real, there is an old Chinese saying, something about "There are no straight lines in nature." I've noticed in a few of the 9/11 shots, that the smoke and / or flames have an edge that is much to straight to be real, this shot included. I'm looking at the patch of fire outside the building between the 6th and 7th columns from the left.
So if I wanted to discredit a real photograph which say, contained evidence that implicated ME, all I would need to do would be to add a little fake smoke and fire, and voila, no more evidence?
yankee451 wrote:No it isn't. Haven't you been reading? This whole picture is a model, this isn't evidence of anything.
YankeeBoy, do you really have no inkling of imagination in your brain? Or are you being deliberately obtuse? (Very troll-like behavior.)
I'm actually figuring this out as we go along here. The idea of an artist's drawing being used as a model just popped into my head as a plausible explanation for your concern of this scenario being too complicated for a computer to figure out.
Then, you use the computer, that has apparently already figured out "fire", to add in the fake fire.
I am still awaiting your reply to my earlier post called "SMOKELESS GASH IMAGES?"
So here it is again, slightly rephrased - in case you are having trouble grasping the issue.
They were not constantly pouring smoke like your cherry-picked videos show.
I am not having trouble grasping your issue; it is not my place to prove the footage contains real images, it is your place to prove they contain ZERO genuine images.
All over this thread your wannabes have been claiming its all a Google earth model; they claim they are not deliberately altered 2D images, they are all pure 3D models. That's a tall order to prove, doncha think? If you knew what you were talking about you'd know how patently ridiculous that claim is.
Here is an example of what Vinnie saw...now of course according to you lot this is all 3D modeling, even the TV, right?:
Here's Chopper 4 . Not only did they model the towers and the surrounding buildings, the gash, the smoke and fire, but they modeled the Hudson with boats and the opposite shore and houses.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_caQ9ZsGycY
It is you and your minions who are having trouble grasping the issue. You have made some extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; but so far all you have done is reinforce my premiss, namely that the "perps" deliberately altered genuine footage so that they ALL can be discredited.
That you refuse to even consider this as an option doesn't rank you very high on the impartiality scale.
Last edited by yankee451 on Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I see that you keep dodging my clear-cut questions. I'll give you another chance to respond to them now.
I will actually reduce my questioning to ONE single question - so as to avoid any undue incomprehensions:
At what stage/time of the day did the thick smoke STOP gushing out of the gash
- to allow for this near-smokeless, detailed view of it ?
Here - on this (strangely banner- less) NBC video that you posted above - you can see just how much smoke was gushing from the gash. At what stage of the 9/11 morning events - in your honest opinion - did that smokeplume subside?