What's with all the conspiracy theories?

[MrJDSmith]

I'm sorry, but we don't do cheap photoshop tricks.

nope, but those that are trying to discredit the United States Government will use photoshop tricks.

 

[sword_of_truth]

Wow. I'm not impressed either. I would never buy the book anyway, too much conspiracy mumbo jumbo for my liking, but I just feel sorry for those people that did buy the book.

You didn't buy the book, didn't read the book and yet you judge the book, make assumptions about it and then feel sorry for those who have bought the book. well feel sorry for me. It's the only work I've come across which actually examines the 911 crime scene for all the physical, photographic & eyewitness evidence. it doesn't theorise at all about who conspired to do it. it upsets the truthers as much as the official story people. the author is an qualified expert in field she is writing about.

I am prepared to change my understanding of 9/11 if presented with a convincing case based on the available evidence. after reading this book, I have reassessed my position.

I must admit though, Dr Wood doesn't do herself justice on video. Her book by contrast is compelling.

 

[Nekoda]

It appears as an effect when it changes in real-time. It does not appear as an effect in still photography, despite all of the relative size/placement possibilities still being present. You tried to make the point that everything in the frame must zoom in or out equally, which is not necessarily the case.

Regardless, none of this matters, because as I pointed out, the objects in that shot did not stay the same size.

What you are suggesting is of some sort of constant "dolly effect" with relation to the distance of the WTC to that bridge. The bridge is closer to the WTC in all the 911 video than it really is if you were to stand at the same distance and take a normal picture of it.

Do you really believe the cameramen filming all the bridge shots were using the "dolly effect" in every single frame? Sounds like you are really grasping at straws to defend your bias. Even if they did - what would be the point of using the special effect to distort perception in a NEWS video that is supposed to be reporting one of the greatest tragedies of our time?

Neither, because the objects in the frame did NOT stay the same size. They changed.

Do you know what parallax is?

Then show me 911 TV video of where the bridge is at the appropriate distance (as represented by the real, non 911 photos). Good luck.

Can you provide a source for that video w/ the red top to the bridge? I can't find it.

When I come across it again watching the 911 news, I'll make a note of where it is and should we still be talking about this subject at that time - I'll let you know.

Yes, I watched it. EVERYTHING in that shot is moving, not just the bridge. The cameraman panned the camera to keep the WTC in the same spot in the frame (though at not the same size), but at the same time, everything else moved.

That's right, in the last few seconds - the background (the bridge) moves - even though the zoom-out has stopped and the camera shot is almost completely static.

I might point out the obvious - the bridge "speed" moving left is the same zooming out as it is when the zoom out has stopped.

The shot doesn't look real - because it isn't.

Regardless, why on earth would they have an animated bridge in a fake shot? That doesn't even make sense. Have you ever shot and edited video? Animating something like that is more work, not less.

Good question. The moving bridge, like a lot of other video anomalies of 911 TV - wasn't intentional. The problem was with the virtual reality/image layering software they were using to create it on the fly.

No, they're not from the same perspective, and the fact that you can't see that speaks a great deal about your inability to objectively evaluate evidence. If you can't analyze a couple simple photographs, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?

A toddler could tell you it isn't a picture of the same thing. They are just about from the same perspective. The "plane" on the left is smaller, it also doesn't reflect the sun like the plane on the right. Even if both shots were real - at least one of them was doctored afterward.

One of the tell tale signs of video forgery is lighting. That "plane" frame is just one frame from a longer video that shows the buildings it's passing over/by on it's way to the WTC are getting full sunlight - but the "plane" itself isn't. It's completely black.

It's fake. The sun doesn't arbitrarily decide not to shine on some objects but not others when neither of the objects has something in front of it to block that sunlight. It's fake. Deal with it.

No, it shows that you can't read, that you can't analyze a photo, and that you don't know how to use google.

I can almost hear you sneering through those words. Almost.

That building with the green roof is The Trump Building at 40 Wall St, which is about 6 blocks southeast of the WTC (or roughly halfway across the island).

Also in that shot, you can see a number of other buildings between the camera and the Trump Building, which, given that the Trump building is almost directly in front of the WTC, means that the camera was somewhere to the southeast of the action.

Also in that shot, towards the bottom, you can see a shorter building that's sort of a reddish-brown color and then another, even shorter building in front of that, that's a beige color.

That beige building is 111 Wall St., which also abuts FDR drive. FDR Drive runs along the east side of Manhattan - to the east of it is the river.

So, the buildings you see in that shot span the entire width of Manhattan - from the WTC on the west to 111 Wall St on the east. There is no way to get that shot from Manhattan; it was shot from across the river in Brooklyn, over a mile away.

The basic problem with your reasoning here is that the building in the for-ground with the green top is no less in focus than the WTC. But I guess you're going to argue "dolly effect" on this one as well?

I can see it now...

Amateur Cameraman: " Oh look, a plane, and it's heading towards the WTC."

*thinks quick*

Amateur Cameraman: " Dolly effect shot would be absolutely perfect for this once in a lifetime shot!"

These two pictures were not shot from similar locations or perspectives.

Similar location. No. Similar angle/perspective - yes.

Where was this video from? Was it from the Naudet documentary? It's not uncommon at all for filmmakers to hold the camera low and use the pop-out display on the camera as the viewfinder instead of the eyepiece when wanting to get a low-angle shot.

Again, your example of "forgery" is a common photography/cinematography trick. Maybe you ought to take a class so you're not so easily duped.

Yes, there seemed to be quite a few professional filmmakers on that fateful day in September 2001. In fact - if you look up who the shots are credited to - nearly all of them are professionals in the photography/video animation industry.

By golly, the coincidences never cease.

But anyway - "amateur" or "professional" - it begs the question of why someone would position their camera just at that angle at the right time to catch the second "plane" - unless they knew it was coming? Oh wait - are you going to tell me they heard the roar of jet engines and quickly set up their camera to film from that position?

 

[Nekoda]

Oh and Dan, for your viewing enjoyment:

***WARNING, SOME COURSE LANGUAGE***

Spoiler: how not to

How NOT to Fake Plane Crash Videos - TinaCart1 - YouTube

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Nekoda, see what I mean when I said before that you know you believe in an irrational conspiracy theory if you dismiss all non supporting information? You're "smoking gun" photographs have been pretty thoroughly debunked here as being in any way sinister, yet you resort to ever more outlandish and convoluted explainations to allow you to dismiss them. *sigh* can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Sad but true. Accept it or not, you're case in point.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What you are suggesting is of some sort of constant "dolly effect" with relation to the distance of the WTC to that bridge. The bridge is closer to the WTC in all the 911 video than it really is if you were to stand at the same distance and take a normal picture of it.

Seriously, you ought to take some photography classes. Learn how different lenses and the positioning of the camera can be used to compose a photograph and adjust the position of subjects within the image. This isn't hard stuff and it would answer all of your questions about "walking" subjects.

Do you really believe the cameramen filming all the bridge shots were using the "dolly effect" in every single frame? Sounds like you are really grasping at straws to defend your bias. Even if they did - what would be the point of using the special effect to distort perception in a NEWS video that is supposed to be reporting one of the greatest tragedies of our time?

No, I gave the dolly effect as an example of how zooming in and out doesn't necessarily cause everything in the image to grow or shrink uniformly. Positioning of the camera plays an important role in how the elements in the shot appear.

Then show me 911 TV video of where the bridge is at the appropriate distance (as represented by the real, non 911 photos). Good luck.

They're all at the appropriate distance. However, different pictures were taken from different positions with cameras whose lenses were set to different focal lengths.

That's right, in the last few seconds - the background (the bridge) moves - even though the zoom-out has stopped and the camera shot is almost completely static.

The camera shot is not static. It's taken from a helicopter; the helicopter is rotating around the WTC and everything in that image is moving. There's much less distance between the WTC and the rest of the buildings in that shot than there is between the WTC and the Verrazano Bridge (whish is about 7 miles away), so the motion parallax caused by the camera's movement and panning is going to make the objects far from the subject swing farther through the field of view than will the objects closer to it. This is basic geometry.

I might point out the obvious - the bridge "speed" moving left is the same zooming out as it is when the zoom out has stopped.

The zooming out may have stopped, but the camera's motion hasn't. The helicopter to which it was mounted continued to fly and the cameraman continued to pan the camera to compensate for the helicopter's motion.

The shot doesn't look real - because it isn't.

Because you don't know how to operate a camera.

Here's a suggestion: download Google Earth. Uncheck everything except "3D Buildings, zoom down to the WTC, and start looking around. I'd recommend starting somewhere around midtown, but on the west side of the island, looking south so that you're in line with the WTC and the Verrazano Bridge. Pay attention to how mild changes in your position affect the way the bridge appears in the background relative to the tower.

I just tried this and it's actually pretty neat to see how close you can get to the shots that were aired on tv. Note - you might have to pan back over the bridge now and then, because it likes to unload objects in the distance in order to improve performance.

Good question. The moving bridge, like a lot of other video anomalies of 911 TV - wasn't intentional. The problem was with the virtual reality/image layering software they were using to create it on the fly.

What software was this?

They are just about from the same perspective.

Similar location. No. Similar angle/perspective - yes.

No, they are not from the same perspective. The one from Liberty St is from about 500-600' away, while the one from Brooklyn is from at least 10-12x that (at least 6500' from what I figure). Given that the South Tower was struck at approximately 1000', basic trigonometry shows us that the Liberty St shot was at an upward angle of about 63 degrees, while the Brooklyn shot was at most, 8.75 degrees (that's assuming that it was taken at ground level on the west side of Brooklyn, which may not be true). The guy at BK was more under the impact than near it.

The "plane" on the left is smaller, it also doesn't reflect the sun like the plane on the right.

I don't know how you figure that the plane on the left is smaller, but it does clearly show some additional lighting on the right wing. The photographer on Liberty St. had a better view of the underside of the wing and would have had more its light reflected back towards his camera than would the guy in Brooklyn. If the guy on Liberty St was a pro and the guy in Brooklyn an amateur (as I believe is the case), then the pro would have had better equipment, which would have given a clearer image.

Even if both shots were real - at least one of them was doctored afterward.

Of course they were - they've both gone through several stages of low quality video compression, making the details nearly indistinguishable.

One of the tell tale signs of video forgery is lighting.

It is?

That "plane" frame is just one frame from a longer video that shows the buildings it's passing over/by on it's way to the WTC are getting full sunlight - but the "plane" itself isn't. It's completely black.

It's fake. The sun doesn't arbitrarily decide not to shine on some objects but not others when neither of the objects has something in front of it to block that sunlight. It's fake. Deal with it.

Again, learn to use a camera. Exposure and dynamic range problems like this happen all the time, particularly on low-quality equipment.

I can almost hear you sneering through those words. Almost.

Well, I do have a problem with people making wild claims about subjects they don't understand.

The basic problem with your reasoning here is that the building in the for-ground with the green top is no less in focus than the WTC. But I guess you're going to argue "dolly effect" on this one as well?

No, that's because of depth of field. Look it up.

Yes, there seemed to be quite a few professional filmmakers on that fateful day in September 2001. In fact - if you look up who the shots are credited to - nearly all of them are professionals in the photography/video animation industry.

By golly, the coincidences never cease.

Well, it is New York. Outside of Los Angeles, NY is the biggest media production hub in the country. There are more than a few skilled photographers wandering around.

But anyway - "amateur" or "professional" - it begs the question of why someone would position their camera just at that angle at the right time to catch the second "plane" - unless they knew it was coming? Oh wait - are you going to tell me they heard the roar of jet engines and quickly set up their camera to film from that position?

No, people were filming because the first building was already on fire. By your reasoning, we should have more shots of the first impact, but we don't. There are only a couple of those.

-Dan.

 

[Nekoda]

Nekoda, see what I mean when I said before that you know you believe in an irrational conspiracy theory if you dismiss all non supporting information? You're "smoking gun" photographs have been pretty thoroughly debunked here as being in any way sinister, yet you resort to ever more outlandish and convoluted explainations to allow you to dismiss them. *sigh* can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Sad but true. Accept it or not, you're case in point.

Actually, Blackwater - didn't I predict you would do this? I did, I said you would take any evidence brought forth out the video and treat it as if it's the *only* evidence - and that's exactly how you're framing it.

Whether something is "debunked" or not is often a matter of an already established bias.

Apparently, in your world, Sunlight decides where it will shine, planes can go from white to black in that same sunlight - Boeing 767's can go to up to 600mph at ground level (where air density is much thicker) without breaking up or being uncontrollable(even though engineers and real life tests say otherwise) and a passenger air bus which, apart from the engines, is mostly made of aluminium alloy can slice through thick steel like butter in defiance of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

It's not me who is being outlandish. It's the story that's outlandish. But you believe it because you want to. You, and others like you are the conspiracy theorists who promote outrageous explanations for why a number of scientific laws, aviation laws, and well known design parameters magically failed on 911.

Who is this guy? Just some random witness I guess. Bet you believe him too...

Who is this man? 9-11 official story started minutes after. - YouTube

Because the news wouldn't lie...and they don't hire actors. Everything is real!

 

[Nekoda]

Hey Dan, I think I'm done talking to you. Half of your arguments are "take photography lessons" and "learn to use a camera". I could put a picture of a square in front of you and you would argue it's really a globe because of some special effect or perspective issue. You aren't the expert you pretend to be and I'm sure you'll be a prime candidate for future psy-ops for a number of years to come.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Actually, Blackwater - didn't I predict you would do this? I did, I said you would take any evidence brought forth out the video and treat it as if it's the *only* evidence - and that's exactly how you're framing it.

Not me. Your photographic baloney has been shown as just that, but if you want to discuss other "evidence", be my guest and present it now.

Whether something is "debunked" or not is often a matter of an already established bias.

In this case, its a matter of Maxwells equations of which the physics of light are a part.

Apparently, in your world, Sunlight decides where it will shine, planes can go from white to black in that same sunlight

Asked and answered-

Boeing 767's can go to up to 600mph at ground level (where air density is much thicker) without breaking up or being uncontrollable(even though engineers and real life tests say otherwise)

For brief periods, they can. As engineers and real life tests say.

and a passenger air bus which, apart from the engines, is mostly made of aluminium alloy can slice through thick steel like butter in defiance of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

Um, do you know what Newton's 3rd law is? briefly put;

Third law: When two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these forces (termed the action and the reaction) are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction.

Nothing about aluminium being unable to cut steel. In fact, what Newton's third law ACTUALLY says, is that you could cut steel with butter, if the butter were propelled at sufficient force.

It's not me who is being outlandish. It's the story that's outlandish. But you believe it because you want to. You, and others like you are the conspiracy theorists who

Thinking that smacking a large rigid structure with a high speed object followed by significant heating is likely to cause structural failure is "outlandish?"

promote outrageous explanations for why a number of scientific laws, aviation laws, and well known design parameters magically failed on 911.

Which laws would those be? Ones you've actually identified problems with, or ones you've falsly been told there are problems with, like Newtons third up there? You keep saying that one should question... you seem awfully accepting of this CT stuff. I mean obviously, you didn't even do fact checking as simple as googling Newton's laws of motion.

Who is this guy? Just some random witness I guess. Bet you believe him too...

Who is this man? 9-11 official story started minutes after. - YouTube

Because the news wouldn't lie...and they don't hire actors. Everything is real!

They could hire actors and blasting crew and CGI specialists and bribe every witness and news reporter in new york to say they saw things that weren't there, to make it all happen the way you claim. Just strikes me as unlikely that you could get thousands of people to play their parts without anyone ever comming forward as a whistle blower, or anyone else noticing.

As to who this guy is, I have no idea, I already told you I don't watch conspiracy theorist videos anymore. If you genuinely understand what happened on that day, you should be able to explain it in your own words, not just point at some tinfoil video and say "ditto".

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Hey Dan, I think I'm done talking to you. Half of your arguments are "take photography lessons" and "learn to use a camera". I could put a picture of a square in front of you and you would argue it's really a globe because of some special effect or perspective issue. You aren't the expert you pretend to be and I'm sure you'll be a prime candidate for future psy-ops for a number of years to come.

2. Disaffected people can feel better about themselves by a. Blaming their shortcommings on some sort of external enemy, and b. They get to feel superior towards all the "sheeple", because unlike them, they are the posessors of a deeper, fundamental truth.

My words, way back in http://www.christianforums.com/t7677754-2/#post61122178

 

[Nekoda]

I'm simply going to repeat a couple of videos for anyone who doesn't like to be mind raped by the big red, white and blue phallic symbol that is the American government and so called "free press":

Wake turbulence:

100% proof of 911 Deception. The Killer casts no shadow. - YouTube

Impossible Airbus Aircraft speed:

The 911 aircraft speed lie. - YouTube

And of course:

911 T.V. Fakery:

SEPTEMBER CLUES - full version - YouTube


Blackwater - I know you won't watch - but I don't really care about your individual opinion - I know I can't convince people in complete denial.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Just going off the titles... is one of those videos about the speeds of actual airbus aircraft?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Hey Dan, I think I'm done talking to you. Half of your arguments are "take photography lessons" and "learn to use a camera". I could put a picture of a square in front of you and you would argue it's really a globe because of some special effect or perspective issue. You aren't the expert you pretend to be and I'm sure you'll be a prime candidate for future psy-ops for a number of years to come.

Ah, so instead of taking the opportunity to prove me wrong by learning how to use a camera and discovering the things all photographers know about taking pictures (or even just downloading google earth as I suggested), you're going to just dismiss what I say?

With all the time you've invested in studying this topic, why not spend some time learning about the subject matter so you can make even stronger cases?

I haven't given you just a bunch of insults. I've given you actual data and opportunities to verify what I'm saying for yourself, but you reject those.

I don't claim to be an expert photographer, but I have taken pictures and I have dealt with many of the same issues that are being brought up in this thread: how to compose a photograph by adjusting the focal length and position of the camera, how to light it and expose it properly so that objects of interest are properly lit, how to angle subjects so that reflections can be controlled and manipulated, etc.

That you won't look into the things I'm suggesting and learn something from another source speaks to your credibility and the credibility of your evidence. It's why people don't believe you and why they won't believe you in the future. Why won't you take the effort to look into the evidence I'm presenting? Are you lazy or are you just afraid that you might be wrong?

-Dan.

 

[Btodd]

I've never come across a no-planer in real time on a message board. Congratulations, Nekoda. You just made the rest of the Truth Movement look somewhat sane.


Btodd

 

[durangodawood]

...Are you lazy or are you just afraid that you might be wrong?

Or worse: that he's been blatantly lied to by "truthers".
.

 

[durangodawood]

I want to see the "1000 professional photographers for truth" website.
.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Or worse: that he's been blatantly lied to by "truthers".
.

That wouldn't stop him from evaluating the evidence I've presented.

-Dan.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Or worse: that he's been blatantly lied to by "truthers".
.

Well, given the credence he puts in a video about the relative airspeed of AIRBUS aircraft as somehow proving 9/11 was a conspiracy...

 

[durangodawood]

That wouldn't stop him from evaluating the evidence I've presented.

-Dan.

Better to let sleeping dogs lie.
.

 

[Nekoda]

I've never come across a no-planer in real time on a message board. Congratulations, Nekoda. You just made the rest of the Truth Movement look somewhat sane.


Btodd

Ah, well thank you. We no planers play within the fringes of madness, you know. Especially when we're trying to communicate to a brainwashed public still trusting their media and glued to the oh so welcoming flicker of their surrogate parent - Television...

"Plane" travels through steel framed skyscraper as fast as it does through air!:

Killtown: Air vs. Skyscraper - YouTube

Poor Betty...can't get her lines right. Is it flight 12 or flight 11 Ms Ong?

Betty Ong: Flight 12 - YouTube

Psst. It aint me who looks mad. It's people like you desperately clinging to your illusions that look mad.