9/11 Conspiracy?[W:1551] (2 Viewers)

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Enough. Debate the topic, and not each other. If attacks continue, i will be handing out thread bans.

 

[jaydeehess]

Circled in red is the helicopter that is above and in front of the towers at about 30 seconds into the Chopper 4 video linked to in my previous post. Its actually one of, if not the, closest and best view of a helicopter in this video. It is in this location less than two minutes before impact and it is this helicopter I feel is what Mr. Cloud is referring to when he says he saw a helicopter, then, later, it was gone.

As anyone can see it is easy to locate in the video if one simply watches the area around the logo. Prior to this moment it is behind the logo and before that, just below the logo. After this moment the camera moves and the copter is out of frame but shortly thereafter the camera zooms out again and you can see it to the right of the north tower, moving away from the camera. As it does, and as the camera zooms out more, the copter becomes less distinct, quickly becoming a small white, fuzzy ball.

In my view there is no doubt that the reason Flight 175 looks fuzzy and indistinct is that the camera focus is set to the depth of the towers making objects beyond them out of focus, combined with the fact that only at a small portion of the aircraft does it take up a significant number of pixels

 

[Mark F]

Circled in red is the helicopter that is above and in front of the towers at about 30 seconds into the Chopper 4 video linked to in my previous post. Its actually one of, if not the, closest and best view of a helicopter in this video. It is in this location less than two minutes before impact and it is this helicopter I feel is what Mr. Cloud is referring to when he says he saw a helicopter, then, later, it was gone.

As anyone can see it is easy to locate in the video if one simply watches the area around the logo. Prior to this moment it is behind the logo and before that, just below the logo. After this moment the camera moves and the copter is out of frame but shortly thereafter the camera zooms out again and you can see it to the right of the north tower, moving away from the camera. As it does, and as the camera zooms out more, the copter becomes less distinct, quickly becoming a small white, fuzzy ball.

In my view there is no doubt that the reason Flight 175 looks fuzzy and indistinct is that the camera focus is set to the depth of the towers making objects beyond them out of focus, combined with the fact that only at a small portion of the aircraft does it take up a significant number of pixels

That clearly is a flying spaghetti monster, or perhaps a giant flying Tadpole, not a helicopter.

Where are the rotors?
Where are the markings?

It couldn't possibly be out of focus! :mrgreen:

 

[jaydeehess]

That clearly is a flying spaghetti monster, or perhaps a giant flying Tadpole, not a helicopter.

Where are the rotors?
Where are the markings?

It couldn't possibly be out of focus! :mrgreen:

its a lot clearer in the actual video rather than a bitmap of a screen cap of the vid.

 

[7forever]

[

In my view there is no doubt that the reason Flight 175 looks fuzzy and indistinct is that the camera focus is set to the depth of the towers making objects beyond them out of focus, combined with the fact that only at a small portion of the aircraft does it take up a significant number of pixels

There is no doubt that the reason the ball looks fuzzy and indistinct is because it was an unknown floating object in focus along with all other major objects in front of it and the barge itself. Combined with the fact that no wings, engines, fuselage or propeller are visible.

The ball was not in front of or beyond the North tower in sight, but moved just behind it before it made two video game turns around tower 2. It's perfectly in focus along with tower 1 and its antenna. The black blob added to Cloud's video demonstrates what out of focus really looks like and confirms that the ball was in focus with the towers after zooming.

 

[Mark F]

There is no doubt that the reason the ball looks fuzzy and indistinct is because it was an unknown floating object in focus along with all other major objects in front of it and the barge itself. Combined with the fact that no wings, engines, fuselage or propeller are visible.

There is no doubt that unidentified flying balls do not exist. I can easily make out wings and a tail even in these horrible images and the reason they are terrible is the resolution is low (pixels are larger than the details) and the object is out of focus. That explanation by the way is a million times more plausible than UFO's of the FSM or any other variety.

 

[7forever]

There is no doubt that unidentified flying balls do not exist. I can easily make out wings and a tail even in these horrible images and the reason they are terrible is the resolution is low (pixels are larger than the details) and the object is out of focus. That explanation by the way is a million times more plausible than UFO's of the FSM or any other variety.

There is no doubt that unidentified floating balls existed on 911. You cannot make out wings or a tail, even in this quality video. The object was the size of a golfball compared to what flight 175 would have scaled to in relation to the towers.

 

[Mark F]

Sorry dude, it is clearly a plane.

FSM's do not exist. They didn't exist on 9/10/2001 or 9/11/2001 or at any time since. You can show me the same lousy images over and over again all you want but to me that looks like a plane because it is a plane. If flying balls make you happy then run with it. Hope that works for you, really I do. But don't count on convincing anyone else.

 

[Mark F]

Sorry Charlie, it is clearly a ball.

Balls do exist.

Yes, balls do exist. This for example is a ball:



The most distinguishing feature is that it is perfectly round.

Your "ball" is not even round, and it clearly has wings and a tail.

[/IMG]

You will never win this one. You have zero chance of swaying me or anyone else here that your giant physics defying unidentified flying blob exists, let alone the public at large.

 

[7forever]

Yes, balls do exist. This for example is a ball:

View attachment 67161114

The most distinguishing feature is that it is perfectly round.

Your "ball" is not even round, and it clearly has wings and a tail.

[/IMG]

You will never win this one. You have zero chance of swaying me or anyone else here that your giant physics defying unidentified flying blob exists, let alone the public at large.

You lost the plane debate because you haven't debated. I'm right simply based on not being challenged even remotely by anyone in the last 2.5 years. You have zero chance of swaying any normal person that black images are real planes. The whole ball reality is a complete impossibility because it was filmed four times by the media.

 

[7forever]

Sorry dude, it is clearly a plane.

FSM's do not exist. They didn't exist on 9/10/2001 or 9/11/2001 or at any time since. You can show me the same lousy images over and over again all you want but to me that looks like a plane because it is a plane. If flying balls make you happy then run with it. Hope that works for you, really I do. But don't count on convincing anyone else.

Sorry Charlie, it is clearly a ball.

Balls do exist. You can show me the same lousy images over and over again of fake planes and they will forever be fake. Nothing will change that or your inability to debate in reality. If fake plane images make you happy then run with it. I don't care what works for you, really I don't. But don't count on convincing any open minded people that fake blobs are real boeings.:lamo

 

[7forever]

There is no doubt that unidentified floating balls existed on 911.

This was recorded by a CBS NY affiliate. This orb is even more clear than Chopper 4's ball. No wings, just nothing but a slowly moving ball that rises in altitude.:lamo

 

[Quag]

yup no doubt about it its an out of focus plane

 

[Mark F]

This was recorded by a CBS NY affiliate. This orb is even more clear than Chopper 4's ball. No wings, just nothing but a slowly moving ball that rises in altitude.:lamo

Except that the upper video is clearly a helicopter and has absolutely nothing to do with the out-of-focus airplane captured in the lower video. You did notice that the upper video was shot AFTER both towers had been hit, yes?

 

[7forever]

Except that the upper video is clearly a helicopter and has absolutely nothing to do with the out-of-focus airplane captured in the lower video. You did notice that the upper video was shot AFTER both towers had been hit, yes?

It's funny you'd say that, because Clifton Cloud said the exact same thing when he saw the ball.:lamo He wasn't sure it was a chopper and never thought it could be a plane, because it was a ball. If it was really a chopper or really a plane, he would have known for sure. He was confused because it wasn't really anything.

"Ya, the second one I'm tellin' ya..was...I didn't see a plane...I was watching it...I didn't see a plane." He didn't see a plane because there was no plane to see. There was only a foreign object that circled around the south tower.

"All I saw was a helicopter and I didn't see the helicopter anymore. It just looked like it exploded from the inside."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bttrlyx4k

 

[Quag]

Yet more videos of out of focus planes.

 

[ozeco41]

Yet more videos of out of focus planes.

I've told him he needs to do more work doctoring his evidence - exp. that video clip.

 

[Mark F]

That's a joke, right? I mean, the two aircraft in the lower photo are clearly not at the same angle nor are they they same distance to the camera. Plus one is very much in focus and the other is very much not. What a complete waste of time.

Let us know what the Grand Jury thinks of your "evidence".

 

[7forever]

https://www.google.com/search?q=rob...TNOjQyAG-q4GADw&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1536&bih=770

Gammy made an attempt a few years ago by demonstrating how a fake plane image could align with a real one. This was done by using a real plane (notice that AIR CANADA is backward) after reversing it. He simply reduced the fake image to make it unclear that it was NOT TURNED toward the camera the same way air canada was. This simple deception was exposed by using an enlarged pic of fake 175 compared to a real boeing at or nearly the same angle. It's very important to understand that he didn't alter any evidence back then, just used an easily detectable attempt to make the angle the same. THE FAKE IMAGE IS CREDITED TO ROBERT CLARK. If there is a difference in angle, the fake image is pointed more away from the camera which would make the right wing appear further from the tail section, but it overlaps it and is angled impossibly upward.:lamo

 

[Mark F]

I am really just sorta done with this monumental pile of stupid.

Lets get off blurry imagery and why don't you explain why remains of the aircraft and those aboard Flight 175 were found scattered about lower Manhattan that morning?

 

[7forever]

THIS WAS THE REAL OBJECT FILMED BY 4 TV STATIONS. CBS ON TOP, aired around 9:05 on the national broadcast. The first was the divebomber, from behind the towers.

HERE ARE TWO EYEWITNESSES WHO DIDN'T SEE A PLANE AND APPARENTLY IGNORED MENTIONING THE BALL.

I was able capture the ball as it peeked out and then a quick edit occurs to well after the explosion. These guys did not see a plane and were confused as to how the south tower exploded. They may have made mention of the object and that audio would've been edited out too. There are countless videos with the impact edited out because they weren't going to insert fake plane images in all of them. You can see him pan to the right when the ball caught his eye.

CW1 "Oh my God!" How did that one just catch on fire man? See, look at all the stuff flying off there."

CW2 "That's a ****in' terrorist attack. How could it be anything else? Why would that just explode? That doesn't make any sense, it has to be ???"

2nd hit missed Campl@net NE apartment (w/ bird) - YouTube

 

[Mark F]

Bird crap stuck on a window is not proof of FSM's. And I am not interested in what 2 guys didn't see. I am interested in what tens of thousands of people did see. I'm sorry but your flying ball theory which relies on blurry out-of-focus imagery and the blanket claim that all evidence showing anything else happened was faked has to be the most ridiculous, completely preposterous claim in all of 9/11 Trutherdom.

 

[Quag]

Bird crap stuck on a window is not proof of FSM's. And I am not interested in what 2 guys didn't see. I am interested in what tens of thousands of people did see. I'm sorry but your flying ball theory which relies on blurry out-of-focus imagery and the blanket claim that all evidence showing anything else happened was faked has to be the most ridiculous, completely preposterous claim in all of 9/11 Trutherdom.

Believe it or not it might actually make the Nuke CT seem almost credible in comparison, almost. Ok not really but it is even farther out there.

 

[7forever]

Bird crap stuck on a window is not proof of FSM's. And I am not interested in what 2 guys didn't see. I am interested in what tens of thousands of people did see. I'm sorry but your flying ball theory which relies on blurry out-of-focus imagery and the blanket claim that all evidence showing anything else happened was faked has to be the most ridiculous, completely preposterous claim in all of 9/11 Trutherdom.

You aren't interested in any evidence that destroys debunked fantasies.eace:lamo

They were watching the towers and the ball was edited out, in this one. Why would it be edited? You have no response, no witnesses, and no answer for how black images are real boeings. You have assumptions and beliefs, but no proof of real planes.

This video and these 2 witnesses prove your belief in 911 fiction.

 

[Mark F]

I might be tempted to believe you if you used more bold text.