All of the "hologram" and "CGI Planes" threads . . . .?

Anyone who posits this theory is straight up DIS-INFO direct from the shadow government. Nothing more and nothing less.

CGI Planes. that better? Don't get me wrong, I am firmly in the MIHOP camp. I just hate to see so much wasted energy spent battling ridiculous arguments like this one. There is more than enough evidence of MIHOP without wandering off down diversions as absurd as this.

There are some unusual aspects to the plane videos. Noticing them and wanting to know why is not the same as saying there were no planes. That is the position I am in. Given nothing but my experience in life, I think the plane videos, both amateur and from "news" sources, look unrealistic for a number of reasons. I want to know why. That doesn't make me a "no planer". People also say thousands saw the second impact. That is not true as I have pointed out many times. Even if there was a plane 1000s would not have seen it.
How likely is it that both buildings responded almost identically to the "hits"?
At first I was like you, I thought that the no planers were disinformationists who were trying to make the 9-11 skeptics look silly, but the more I look at the footage, the more odd the planes seem.
Here's this story about Steven Rosenbaum, the owner of Camera Planet and how he put out advertisements in the Voice to get amateur photogs to send photos//footage of 9-11. The New York Times has joined forces with him to "preserve" this footage and archive it. American Express is also sponsoring him I read. Pretty big names for this web site guy, I've never heard of anyone getting that kind of corporate help from a web site that collects 911 footage. It's suspect to me.
http://www.cameraplanet.com/divisions/com/archived_frameset.php?f_id=430&d_id=1

Unfortunately this is a divisive issue that turns us against each other, but we should be able to ask questions and where else can we ?

nt

CGI - They use it a lot in the movies. How do you think they make films like Star Wars look so real?

BTW: Welcome to DU. :hi:

nt

N. Phil Trater
82216 5th Column Road
Specterville, USA

Quite a number of time I heard somebody shout disinfo and later it happened to be true. In fact it is more common that if somebody says disinfo that it isn't instead of the other way around.

I must say though, conspiracy theories about conspiracy theorists is a damn funny concept. :+

If some Paid Infiltrating Shill (PIS), not naming any names, were making fun of no-plane theories and promoting things like Holographic Twin Towers (HTT), for whom would that Shill be Paid Shilling for?

If said Shill were indeed being Paid, I would point out that I could come up with some real doozies, but his/her/it's bosses would have to provide me with a case of Zima, two high-end male escorts, and a suite at the Rennaisance Mayfair to fully enjoy my creativity.

I think I know of whom you speak, but I suspect that guy is doing it for art or something.

or possibly bombs were in the WTC, but no no-planes at the Pentagon or Shanksville kind of MIHOP'ers.

Seems counterintuitive to me.

well it should be obvious from there on!

Yet many people believe that theory so they don't have to think about it anymore.

I think it's a similar deal with LIHOPers, they know the OCT is bullshit, but they don't want to believe MIHOP for various reasons.

:toast:

I'm going to have to go to my NWO handler and see if I can renogotiate.

But, I will work on the Zimas. The male escorts, I don't know. How about a fit, but aging, male shill?

How do WE know YOU'RE not disinfo?

Hmmm???

Or maybe you're just brainwashed to not think with an open mind or think things through.

some of those videos do display odd characteristics. And I do know of at least one eye-witness who described the first plane, I believe, as no bigger than a corporate jet. Same with the Pentagon. Doctored film or?:shrug: Thanks.
quickesst

This shows the trajectory of the second plane hitting the South Tower. See those buildings south of WTC? See those streets? How many people had a view of the Towers? And what were nearly all of them looking at after 8:46 am?

A plane self-evidently would have been seen by hundreds, if not thousands.

Hundreds if not thousands (including several I've met) are going around saying they saw a plane striking the building. (With their eyes - not on TV.)

A couple of dozen impact videos exist, many of them by people who claim they were merely shooting the first fire when they caught the second plane. (These are many more amateurs than a no-planes conspiracy would really need to scare up.)

A lifesize hologram actually projected into the air may be impossible, but it's not an inconceivable technology.

CGI planes is inconceivable - inconceivable both that it would fool the world, and also inconceivable that anyone planning an attack would ever expect it to work - and so absurd as to inspire contempt.

The most prominent CGI planes supporters originally went from "pods" attached to the real plane to holograms to CGI... as though in a concerted attempt to become increasingly absurd.

Tell me, by this logic, why did the dastardly CGI directors who planned 9/11 stick a pod on their image of a plane? Why didn't they come up with a more "realistic" image?

I don't know who's a sucker here, and I accuse no particular individual, but I have little doubt there is intentional disinfo at work - a pincer action between some who advance the worst non-evidence and others who pretend to reasonably debunk it.

You're letting yourself be persuaded by a lot of dubious evidence -- diagrams, hearsay, video clips, all of which are easily manufactured or manipulated. Humans are suggestible. Ever heard of religion?

You're also ignoring several obvious possibilities:

1) It wasn't a plane, but a missile;

2) It was some kind of aircraft, but it didn't actually hit the tower -- it flew on, but the fireball distracted everybody who happened to have a view;

3) There was no plane OR missile, just an explosion, and the "plane" memories were filled in by watching faked TV stories.

CGI is only really necessary for the money shot (collision), and the ones I've seen are obvious fakes. But I think all the rest of it is bogus too.

Really. I suggest you do yourself a favor and take a long break from this stuff.

Deal with it.

Thanks for posting the image.

Let me tell you what I know about that trajectory since that is very close to the way I flew into LaGuardia two weeks prior to attend my grandmother's funeral. (Has a result, I have not been able to get on a plane since). My flight came in right at sunset and we had flown straight up the east coast from JAX. The first recognizable thing I saw was the Statue of Liberty. That's when you go oh wow, almost home. Right behind the statue rose the Twin Towers, gleaming in the setting sun. It felt like you could almost reach out and touch them, that's how close we were. It was an incredibly beautiful sight. The plane turned toward the East River and on in over Queens. I love to look out the window when they come in that way and look for places I recognize.

Passenger jets come into NYC running up the outside of the Jersey Shore all day long. They go up around the bottom of Manhattan and then fly over Queens straight into LaGuardia. Sit on the Grand Central during rush hour and you would think they're going to land on your head, when they come in from that direction.

Most people don't notice the jets off the coast running in, so there would have been nothing out of the ordinary. Not until Flight 175 veered off too soon and headed to the WTC instead. The amount of time it would have been even even in visual range would have been under one minute. Add to that the tremendous noise from every siren in 5 boroughs going off, you wouldn't even be able to hear it until it was directly overhead. Plus, most people to the east of the flight path, which is also the most densely populated area couldn't see anything even if they did hear something. Combine that with the fact most people who could see anything had their attention on the the 1st Tower. They would not have much time to react to a plane flying in all of a sudden, no less figure out what it was, while at the same time being horrified that another tower had been hit. Add to that, being bombarded with reruns for the next week on TV of the News images and you will find very few reliable eyewitnesses who saw enough to give a good first hand account of what actually hit the WTC.

most of those windows are blocked by buildings. Across the river, it is not really close enough. It is on the south side of Manhattan coming in from the river. People see the helicopter level shots of the plane and they think everyone in Manhattan has that view and they don't.
I'm not saying there were no planes but "proof" of them is not that thousands saw the planes. It's kind of remarkable really how many said they saw the explosions but not the planes.

Even if they could see that spot, do you think they all knew to have their eye trained on it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh5LLoMGh4I

The wings a tail would have been sheered off at some point. No way a plane can go 100% into a building like that.

or are you just trolling?

of this CT talking point will not ever make it so.

The resolution of the pictures you are pointing to is for crap. You can't say anything definitive about the details of those framegrabs. Why do you keep harping on this?

wings and tails included. Impossible.

The video you are linking is so grainy and fried that you can't even make out the distinctive lines along the sides of the towers!

It is intellectually dishonest to use those resolution-challenged photographs to make the kind of categorical statements you are making. Period.

crying "bad video resolution" each time we introduce video evidence to prove our point.

Ironically, the bad video resolution is part of OUR evidence! Don't tell me of the lot of those videos taken by news choppers, that they had outdated video cams taking those shots.

Crying about people pointing out the paucity and flimsiness of their evidence.

Go get me a crystal clear picture of this event, that I can at least make out clearly one of the most distinctive details of these two buildings (the vertical lines), and let's see how a plane really "disappears" into a building.

Do you see the vertical lines that run up the entire length of the WTC towers? They are very distinctive to the towers. This look became iconic of the towers.

None of the pictures or videos being used by the no-plane advocates is of high enough resolution to display these vertical lines. Go find a picture of the plane on impact that clearly shows these lines (please, leave Photoshop out of this - I am sorry that this needs to be stated). Go find a video in which this distinctive physical characteristic is clearly visible. Then I will say that you have found a high enough resolution to make the kind of statements you are making.

Of course, with that high resolution, we will see the hole created by the entering plane. No wing will disappear. The plane will simply crash into the building and explode. I guarantee it.

Duh. :crazy:

And when you do he'll say no, what he wanted was the ruby slippers.

:crazy:

but it seems that a massive object moving at 800 feet per second would disappear into a building just like it does on the video.

in the remaining 25% of the tower???

It stops and has a smoke break after disappearing into the building, but before disintegrating. The CGI guys handled it in post.

You never responded and I wasn't going to let that line go to waste.

a very strong union indeed.

Although small in membership, its unsurpassed bargaining team negotiated terms that include having to work only one day per century, and the work day consists of a mere 30 minutes (including a 15 minute break). Its members last worked on September 11, 2001 beginning at 8:45 a.m. and ending at 9:15 a.m. (including break time).

They do not have to report to work again until September 11, 2101.

Great work if you can get it.

:D

that the stronger one survives without damage. It's not hard to imagine the plane broke up as it crashed into building, while damaging the building in the process.

no way. Parts of the swept back wings and tail would have sheered.

maybe

:headbang:

That is not to say I in any way believe they did, just that they could have.

Have you seen this article re: hologram and voice morphing psy-ops weaponry? It's the way of the future. Why kill folks, when you can just freak them out really badly, make them get on their knees and submit to slavery?

Snippet:
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.

And besides, investigators came back, what does Allah look like?

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

...then I'll start crediting holograms over cities.

But the article's very intriguing to me. What purpose could Allah floating over Baghdad accomplish? Would they get James Earl Jones (or the audio morph of James Earl Jones) to proclaim Saddam evil and call for an insurgency to rise up and overthrow him? This reminds me of the episode of Days of Our Lives, when Stephano projected himself dressed as a big bird god to frighten some natives out of attacking him. Yes, I saw that on TV. OMG.

Anyway. One sentence that I definitely didn't believe at all in this story? The military didn't grab the technology up. The Pentagon has been throwing money at remote sensing, haven't they? Somebody in those five walls is chortling over this stuff now.

they would believe a huge Allah floating in the sky, what is he going to command them to do? "Let the west have your oil fields..."

I can see him floating down now, arms out stretched, welcoming his hate-filled minions with a smile. I bet they could get a hell of a rise in recruitment rates with that one.