NOSED OUT - proof of TV fakery (from Sept Clues)

Proof TV fakery was used on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ">
(07:29) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ



http://www.youtube.com/simonshack

proof that CTers will believe ANYTHING so long as it fits their religion.

bye bye

and Nosed Out proved it.

...Here's CNN's Aaron Brown commenting on the nose through. Also, watch the right wing seem to just vanish right before impact (:36 in the video).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2A9VtRWJXj0&feature=related

The "Nosed Out" video, which proves TV fakery, hasn't been debunked yet. You up for the challenge? It is a "nutty" theory, yes? So it shouldn't be too hard for you to debunk.

TV fakery debunked in three words.

See how easy that was?

Hey, it's only shaped (sort of) like an airplane from that angle, at that moment, in that resolution.

Otherwise it's "just debris"!

And the OP implicitly admits this is a parody, one of the hallmarks of the "TV fakery" crew: "I always appreciate a good joke."

(Gosh, am I allowed to wonder if the OP has been here in different guises before?)

But note also that this ritual is never complete until the bedunkers arrive for the kabuki. First post, a major genius lets out the equivalent of Nelson's "HA-ha! Stupid Conspiracy Theorist!"*

And kick! goes the thread. The real "TV fakery" is the professional wrestling show that replaces consideration of the open questions of September 11, the evident cover-up, the impact on all of us when we allow a government of lies.

(* I am assuming Simpsons characters are better known as references nowadays than Lot, or Iago, but I'll explain Nelson for anyone who doesn't get it.)

However, it is nice to see that Jack kicked this thread with his wedding theory before I kicked it to tell you the wedding's off.

Soon enough Jack will be the only one kicking threads like this, other than the true believers.

kick, damnit! :popcorn:

Instead of "every". Right? :popcorn:

OK, that's once.

Actually it's been my experience that I'm right more often than you. :headbang:

Tell me, deen, how did your "video analyst" get from this:



... to the image in your post?

My image is a frame from Ace Baker's (nonsensical) analysis of the speed of the plane. (And if you want the debunking of that, you'll find it on JREF.) He says he got his 640x480 video from Eric Salter, who digitized it from a VHS tape made of the live broadcast. (If you look at the other images Baker has, it definitely seems to be higher quality than the YouTube resized and over-compressed crap that other "no-plane analysts" are using, but it's still pretty low quality.) I've done a straight 10X pixel enlargement, so you can see what's really there to work with. Enhancement can bring out subtle differences in color and intensity, but there is no enhancement possible that will add any real details that aren't in those original pixels. That would be the equivalent of manufacturing information out of thin air, which is precisely what the image in your post has done.

For comparison, below is another 10X enlargement, but it was done with bicubic resampling, which smooths out pixelated edges. But again, since it isn't possible to add details that aren't in the original pixels, the apparent higher resolution of this image is just an illusion -- the edges of the real objects don't necessarily look like this. However, taking that and applying a "clarification" contrast enhancement gives a very different impression than your image:



In this version, it appears that the "cockpit" of your "nose out" could be a cloud of smoke and debris that's actually in front of the darker object that's emerged farther from the building (which doesn't look nearly so much like the tip of the nose as your image, either.)

In short, your image goes so far beyond any realistic version of those pixels that it can't be called anything but a fraud. Of course, it was just intended as entertainment for bullshit addicts who don't really care.

All videos that were taken from the north show that clouds of debris exited the building at two main points. These exit holes are believed to have been caused by the engine (on the left, exiting directly between the corner columns), and the landing gear, which were both found on the street.




This is consistent with the interpretation above, that the "nose out" view actually shows two separate clouds of debris.

Aaron Brown of CNN, commenting about the nose
'coming through the other side of the building.'


www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A9VtRWJXj0

Brown: "It looks to me -- and I'll confess I don't have the greatest monitor here -- that it almost looks like you can see the nose of that plane coming through the other side of the building."

This is your new, undebunkable proof that both videos are fake, and you'd rather not discuss the fraudulent image processing in deen's OP? OK, fine, let't try the same experiment with the video you linked to. Here are the pixels we can work with:



Now, please tell me what image processing I can use to get from that image to the one you have?

And, if you can find time, please explain the "logic" behind the whole thing: The initial "no-planer" claims about the Chopper 5 video was that it was an error in faking the live feed. Now, you're saying that CNN made the same error in their fake video too?

and the original clip was altered.

so I assume the question now is....altered by whom?

A) And also when? If it had been digitally altered before the clip went on the air, then someone who had access to the newsroom did the job, either a government agent or someone in the media colluding with the government.

B) OTOH, if the editing job was performed after it was released on the airwaves, that means it was done by someone outside of official channels, e,g. someone who was trying to discredit the government. Which obviously implies that there exists an UNALTERED VERSION of the clip that was previously widely aired on the public airwaves.

So the million dollar question becomes, where is the UNALTERED VERSION of the clip? If A is true, then the UNALTERED VERISON would, of course, never have been released. But if B is true, then the UNALTERED VERSION would be freely available to the public.

So if you think B is true, then please prove it by simply providing a link to the UNALTERED, UNTAMPERED with clip.

And Good luck!

so where's the original (without the altered nose-out effect)?

If you or deen have something better -- one that proves his image is not a total fraud -- let's see it. Otherwise, people might get the idea that you two are rather gullible. And, since you seem to have forgotten, I'm still waiting for you to explain the "logic" of claiming the CNN video is also fake.

...the nose out image is misrepresentation on the part of the OP?

Look at post #15. Do you acknowledge that this, and similar footage, did air on CNN as well as the network stations?

Yes, I'm claiming the "nose out" image in the OP is a fraudulent representation of the video. I suggest you read post #9 several times until you understand it. And you must have missed my post #16.

There is not the slightest scrap of evidence that any of the videos show anything except debris exiting the building.

How sad.

What is even sadder is why the Moderators allow skeptics to have free-reign on insulting truthers here, but truthers would be banned after their 2nd/3rd offense. Why is that?

Gee, you missed post #9 too? Either that, or you really don't understand the meaning of the term "ad-hom." But I'm sure Jack Riddler would want more precision: I insulted "no-planers."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And why was his posted where he insulted truthers not deleted?

I didn't place any specific posters in that group. Belonging to that group is voluntary.

are you?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=killtowning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPN_outjNg8

:rofl:

what those horribly blurred out images of yours is supposed to prove.

You claim the image in the OP to be faked by someone attempting
to discredit the official story. If that is true, then you should
be able to easily prove it by producing the ORIGINAL clip.

That is to say, the same video clip that does NOT show a nosed-out plane.
So far, you have failed to come through.

First, excuse me, sparky, but if you'll look up top, you'll see that it's deen who's claiming that he's got proof of something astonishing. What my "horribly blurred out images" prove are how pathetically far short of any such proof that image falls -- at least to a rational person. What my image shows is that the highly processed image in the OP looks suspiciously like a deliberate fraud. That would be because my image shows that that there are simply not enough pixels there to really tell for sure what's coming out of the building, but the pixels that are there don't really resemble the OP image very much, and that there is a much more rational explanation for what we do see. I told you where I got my image: from a "truther" who says it was taken from a 640x480 digitization of a VHS tape of the live broadcast, and Ace Baker says that's the best version he's been able to get. Now, you're saying I've still got something to prove by getting the original? LMAO, nope, that's not how it works. If deen's "video analyst" was honest, he would simply show us the image he used as a starting point, tell us where he got it and how far removed from the original it is, and then explain exactly why it looks so much different from my "horribly blurred out images."

But if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

why is that?



Guess what genius, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT (THE IMAGE IN THE OP IS INDEED A FRAUD).

NOW WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL, non-altered video clip?



Let me repeat one last time:

If the MSM or the government was not responsible for the TV fakery, as you contend,
then where is the ORIGINAL?? Again, NO ONE is disputing that the nose-out video has been faked!

You seem to be hopelessly confused (again), nebula, but I'll make one more attempt to explain it to you. What appears to be fraudulent here is the image processing done in the OP image to make a few pixels look like the nose of the plane, when no such detail can be supported by the amount of information available in those pixels. At the very least, what is fraudulent here is the assertion that this "enhancement" of the image constitutes proof of "TV fakery" (through some logic that you still haven't quite explained). The fact that the cloud of pixels somewhat resembles the nose of the plane (and really, not even all that much) is not proof that it is the nose of the plane or that it's an error in faking the video (presumably by accidentally putting the nose of the fake plane through the building, but you still haven't explained to me why the CNN video from the opposite side would have the same error in fakery). The "official story" that's allegedly being disproved is that what we are seeing is the engine and the landing gear exiting the building. Saying that the cloud of pixels somewhat resembles the nose of the plane -- after some rather suspicious "enhancement" -- does not prove that it's not in reality the engine and the landing gear.

If deen is claiming that the original image that was used to make that "enhanced" version in the OP really has more information than the best version that I have found, and that it does indeed contain enough information to prove that it's the nose of a (faked) plane and can't be the engine and landing gear, then deen is the one required to prove that. Deen is the one claiming he's going to prove something astonishing; what I have done is to demonstrate why what he's shown us so far falls short of being any such proof.

Get it now? Jeez...

You are hopelessly confused and deluded.

You have been doing nothing but arguing with yourself all along this entire thread, since no one is disputing the image has been FAKED. What part of TV FAKERY do you not understand?

The still from the clip has been clearly FAKED, now let's see the ORIGINAL, NON-FAKED clip.

... since you don't seem to understand what's being argued, creating yet another "nebula thread" marching steadily toward the lower-right corner in the vain hope that after enough repetitions, nebula will finally "get it." But how about this: You don't really need me for that. Reply to this post, then go back and reread what I already posted and pretend I posted it again, so go ahead and reply again. Then keep doing that until you're satisfied that you won the argument.

Who knew William Seger would turn out to be such a fervent no-planer?


Welcome to the Clue Club!

Not a peep to be heard.

In the versions I have, the "nose out" unmistakably matches the "nose in". But if you need to call it a fraud just so you can sleep better, go right ahead.

... because of the reasons I gave: 1) it's impossible to add any real details by digital enlargement that aren't in the original pixels; 2) the version I have certainly appears to be better quality than the crappy YouTube version your "analyst" used; and 3) that better version doesn't really look like the nose of the plane, and specifically the "cockpit" appears to be a separate cloud of debris, which is supported by views from the north. You have answered to none of those, except to claim the mine is a "poor version," with no substantiation offered. Pretty lame support for something your called "proof of TV fakery," dontcha think?

Just in case you can't, this is what I said in my last post:

"In the versions I have, the "nose out" unmistakably matches the "nose in"."

 

... that's funny.

- Make7

... and I explained in detail why the "versions {you} have" fall far short of any "proof of TV fakery." You haven't really offered any proof that any videos show anything but debris exiting the building. The ball is in your court if you want to dispute the arguments in post #9. You also haven't answered my challenge to nebula in post #16 to explain how, if the "nose out" in the Chopper 5 video was claimed to be an error in faking the plane impact, how does the CNN video from the opposite side showing debris exiting the building also support a claim of "fakery?"

Maybe after lighting up a Scooby-Dooby? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clue_Club

"Much of the comedy would come from Woofer, who would constantly accuse suspects without good reason, then later back-track while proclaiming his genius; and Wimper, a much simpler, easy-going, and less-intelligent dog, who would gently go along with his comrade’s schemes. Unlike Scooby-Doo, the dogs are only able to talk to each other and not to humans."

THEY also see 9/11 as an inside job ---
and heavy Cheney involvement ---

Anyone who believes the 9/11 myths must love comedy -- !!!

Not.

If Clinton had been President on 9/11, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Republicans thought it was an "inside job." But is there some reason why you think I should be impressed with what any Republicans think -- especially ones who can't tell that September Clues is bullshit?

Clinton WAS president in '93 when we had the first alledged terrorist attack --- NOT!

The FBI let that one happen -- actually aiding it.

The PNAC then tried to get Clinton to attack Iraq --

No one is asking you to be "impressed" with anything ---
but the facts still remain that quite a number of Republicans point to their own Republican neo-cons Bush/Cheney as the guys who brought us 9/11 ---

If September Clues was "bullshit" you wouldn't have to bother to be here ---

Not.

So, the FBI did the '93 bombing so that the PNAC could ask Clinton to invade Iraq in '98? But the PNAC letter to Clinton in '98 completely forgot to mention the '93 attack?

Thanks for not asking me to be impressed.

I'm even less clear on this "logic" about how if September Clues was bullshit then I wouldn't have to bother to be here. At the risk of getting dizzy, maybe you can explain how you reached that "conclusion?"

Not --- !!!

Here's the correction ---
The PNAC wanted Clinton to attack Iraq IMMEDIATELY AFTER the '93 attack on the WTC.

Meanwhile ---
Disingenuous while feigning ignorance . . . ?
Guess we've never seen that here before --- !!

It was formed in '97. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
They sent their letter to Clinton in '98, but it says absolutely nothing about the WTC bombing:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

So, surely you meant to claim is was just the same neocons who went on to form PNAC that wanted Clinton to attack "immediately after" the '93 attack? Got any proof? In fact, I can't seem to find any attempts to link the '93 bombing to Iraq, except BushCo's claim in 2003 (trying to justify the invasion) that Iraq had given money to one of the suspects: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

> "Disingenuous while feigning ignorance . . . ?"

You seem to say a lot of things that don't make much sense. Care to explain that one?

:rofl:

And WE'RE the nutcases?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK9usjX6QPY

... plus probably a great deal of debris form the interior. But yes, I do believe that the people who put bullshit like "September Clues" on the web are most likely mentally ill.

That's an interesting theory. If you'll freeze this video at 1:54 you'll see the nose-through area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK9usjX6QPY

Do you see an opening big enough for an engine to fit through? And what happened to that engine and gear, William?

I mean, other than believing anything and everything you see in a "no-planer" YouTube?

This is what a 767-400 engine looks like:




The gear you show was found at the corner of West and Rector streets. It could not have come from flight 175, unless you're claiming it fell off well before impact.




How does retracted landing gear find its way out the other side of the building, and where did it exit, and where did it land?

Yes, it appears that my posted photo is the one from Flight 11, found to the south. (Sorry about that, but since this is a pointless waste of time anyway, I grabbed the first pic I found from a site that didn't make that clear.) The one from Flight 175 crashed through the roof of a building to the north, according to FEMA. Here's a pic I found on a "truther" site at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/aircraft.htm, so please completely ignore this one instead:



As for why the engine wouldn't look like your photo after plunging through the building, I think I already mentioned in another thread that the average fifth grader can understand how the plane and the part of the building where it hit were BOTH destroyed in the collision, but the momentum carried most of the debris forward. I suspect they would also understand that the engine probably suffered some further change in appearance after falling 1000 feet onto the pavement. Sorry if that's too complicated for you, but arguments based on your inability to understand it are a waste of everyones time. Ditto for "how does retracted landing gear find its way out the other side of the building." Retracted into what -- the debris of the fusalage? The landing gear apparently exited through the hole in the rectangle on the right in my photo of the wall, and it landed on the building shown in the diagram above that.

There's probably no hope that you will ever return to reality -- not as long as you continue to think that being ridiculed for saying stupid things really means you're on to something. That's a nasty feedback loop you've got there, and it remains to be seen if I get tired of ridiculing you before you get tired of making an ass of yourself. You seem to have an unusually high insensitivity to ridicule, but it also seems the NWO has assigned many agents to your case, so wearing me down probably isn't going to do you any good.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dPN_outjNg8

:rofl:

the fans on the front are very light and fragile (low pressure/low temperature part of the engine) - the compressor fans are very tough and strong (high pressure/high temperature part of the engine). Once you understand how engines are made you will understand why the debris cannot look like your picture.

Your comment about the landing gear being retracted makes no sense - the body of the aircraft disintegrated.

...for which, as always, you provide no answer.

You can't explain how a large commercial jetliner melts into a steel and concrete skyscraper keeping its form from nose to tail section, exhibiting no crumbling, bending, shearing, or deformation of any kind, not to mention any deceleration until the tail section just disappears.

You can't explain how an engine and landing gear exit a building where there is no exit hole.

You can't explain how three buildings all collapse at nearly free fall speed, into their own footprint, shooting debris outward as they fall with concrete being pulverized and reduced to fine dust.

You can't explain the nose-through debacle.

You can't explain the very conspicuous absence of wreckage at all three sites.

You can't reconcile the pre-collapse damage to the Pentagon facade with the shear size of a commercial jetliner.

The OCT fairytale does not put forward believable explanations for any of this.

The best you can do, and all you ever do, is show up here and engage in nuisance/distraction aimed at preventing any meaningful discussion from taking place.

If that's a "nuisance/distraction," why did you ask the question? What "meaningful discussion" did you have in mind that doesn't involve responding to what you say?

This is also like those who just can't possibly see anything that looks like "demolition"
of the WTC towers ---

Yet, quite a number of anchors on the air immediately noted that it looked just like
DEMOLITION ---

Any chance that those can't see don't want to see?

No, it does not appear "too immediately to be anything else." That hardly makes enough sense to respond to, but in fact, if you count frames to estimate speed, the preposterous claim that it was an error in "masking" a dubbed-in plane is proved to be ridiculous: Whatever came out the other side lost a lot of velocity while it was inside the building -- about 30% to 40% as a rough estimate -- and when it exits, it's obviously moving much slower than the plane had been. You don't even need to count frames and pixels to see that.

Another thing I've noticed is that whatever initially came out the side is much narrower than the nose of the plane -- much like the guts of the engine, in fact. It then appears to expand, or perhaps is overtaken by a cloud of debris, which makes it look larger and blunter, right up until the frame that the OP "enhanced" to look something like the nose in one previous frame.

> "Any chance that those can't see don't want to see?"

This is a very strange statement, coming from someone who clearly hasn't looked at the "nose out" video very carefully at all. I suspect the same thing is true of the collapse videos.