View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Another amateur video eyewitness records and sees no plane

Postby accidentsinspace » 26 Oct 2009, 02:54

911 "Nose Out" Plane Cameraman Suggests TV Fakery is Reality

User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31






Re: 9/11 TV FAKERY: AUGMENTED REALITY

Postby accidentsinspace » 26 Oct 2009, 03:09

Another cameraman cannot work out what he saw. "It looked like a special effect". FBI confiscates his film within seconds.
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Another amateur video eyewitness records and sees no plane

Postby accidentsinspace » 26 Oct 2009, 03:14

Evan Fairbanks interview. Let's see what he has to say for himself?

User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Another amateur video eyewitness records and sees no plane

Postby NinjaPuppy » 26 Oct 2009, 03:16

AIS - Can you please keep similar content together in a topic and not make a topic for each of these videos?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Another amateur video eyewitness records and sees no plane

Postby accidentsinspace » 26 Oct 2009, 03:20

REVISITING THE INTERVIEWS OF EVAN FAIRBANKS: HE IS TELLING LIES. LISTEN FOR YOURSELF!

User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 03:25

Please read slowly:There is a man in the video. He is a professional photographer. He was stood under the south tower at the side the plane hit. He saw nothing.

The crappy airplane parts were props that were dropped there.


Please read slowly: There is a man in the video. He is not named. His profession is not named. His location is not named. He admits to hearing but not seeing.

Accident gets to dope slap himself.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 03:26

But 'gibberish' is your first language. I was merely trying to blend in with the environment.


Clearly your use of gibberish is a reflection of your present educational level.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 03:27

The crappy airplane parts were props that were dropped there.


So finally accident has made a claim. He claims that all of these parts were dropped there.

Proof please!
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby accidentsinspace » 26 Oct 2009, 03:44

Nostradamus wrote:
The crappy airplane parts were props that were dropped there.


So finally accident has made a claim. He claims that all of these parts were dropped there.

Proof please!


The fact that no planes hit the wtc suggests they were. I saw all drop from the second plane during ther 'melt into the building mode'. Maybe you could point out on the videos exactly where these bits came from.

'
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 03:54

The fact that no planes hit the wtc suggests they were. I saw all drop from the second plane during ther 'melt into the building mode'. Maybe you could point out on the videos exactly where these bits came from.


This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question. In other words you have no proof or evidence that these are props. It is a baseless claim.

So now in part 2 you claim the props were dropped from a non-existent plane? This is during the 'melt into the building mode'?

It is your responsibility to defend the claim. This means you post the evidence including images with a statement about the images. My response is simple. I do not see anything dropping from the planes before impact.

There is no 'melt' into building. It is a collision between a plane and a building that shreds the plane and its contents into pieces.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby NinjaPuppy » 26 Oct 2009, 04:01

accidentsinspace won't be able to get back to you on that ND. He's now got a 3 day suspension.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby brett » 26 Oct 2009, 04:25

and whilst he is kicking his heals - maybe he can remember where he wrote about 9/11 - another one who will never answer direct questions :roll:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby NinjaPuppy » 26 Oct 2009, 04:30

I consolidated all of his 911 "fakery" topics as well, so you might want to look around a bit.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 09:57

I don't look forward to having a long winded delay so I am looking into the "melt into building" mode that was mentioned. So far it seems this is related to the Pentagon and not the WTC. There is a witness to the Pentagon crash that says:
The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building.


Another possibility is the claim by the no planers that a clipping plane was used to simulate the plane passing into the building. Some people make the claim that the building was steel and concrete and the plane would have simply bounced off since it was made of aluminum.

Image
This is what happens when a soft cuddly bird hits a windshield. The windshield was smashed. Which is harder, fluffy bird with hollow bones, or laminated tempered glass?

http://thekansan.com/images/030599/tonado_hay.jpg
Here is a photo of a straw stuck into a tree.


That's a video of pumpkin version van door. Soft pumpkin overpowers steel door.

So a soft object can do severe damage to a harder object if it hits hard enough. So just what did the plane hit. Well here is a look at the WTC towers without their skin of glass.
Image
See all of the open space. What makes a skyscraper possible is that it is a skeleton of steel. When the plane hit the building it shattered into the building taking out some of the steel, but not enough to topple the building.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 10:18

The claim of a clipping plane being used refers to a technology known as augmented reality. This is similar to, but distinct from a virtual environment. In augmented reality a virtual image is superimposed over an actual image to provide an augment image. The claim in this case is that an augmented reality was set up to augment actual video with virtual images of planes crashing into buildings.

Augmented reality systems require that the observer's view is well known. This means that the position of the observer and the direction the observer is viewing are well known. This means that the 6 degrees of freedom of the observer are well known. The x, y, z coordinates of the observer are not sufficient. That's half the game. The pitch, yaw, and roll also have to be known. These latter 3 must be known quite precisely, say 3 to 4 digits of precision at a minimum.

The problem is that none of the videos could have been faked unless the cameras were outfitted beforehand with devices providing real time 6 degree of freedom feedback.

Actually, 6 degrees of freedom is a minimum requirement.

Getting back to the clipping plane issue, it would be impossible to implement any of the real time augmented reality features such as a clipping plane unless every camera were a part of the conspiracy.

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that every camera that day contained devices providing real time coordinate feedback.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest