It's amazing to me that people still carry on the 'no plane' myth. Forget for a minute who you think was behind the controls or who put them up to it - How can any rational person claim those weren't airplanes that stuck WTC 1&2??
Are there any 'no planers' here who would like to chime in?http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.htmlSnip:
The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used for blackmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Snip:
2nd Hit TV Fakery?
Unlike the first hit, the multiple videos and photographs of the second hit clearly show a 767, so the no-planers are forced to claim that these videos were faked with computer graphics, overlaid in real-time on live TV or on tape afterward. Why the perps would resort to this risky operation when there was no technical obstacle to flying a plane into a building is never credibly explained.Not surprisingly, the anomalies turn out to be amateurish image analysis mistakes.
The observation of wings "flickering" on and off is one good example. These "flickering wings" only occur in the poorer quality video in which the brightness of the wing closely matches that of the background. What is happening is simple: noise and compression artifacts blur what little visual data there is of the edge of the wing. The wing then becomes indistinguishable from the background in that frame, hence the "disappearing wing" anomaly. Whether it happens or not in a particular frame is determined by random dispersal of noise and compression artifacts. But stepping back from the technical analysis, the flickering wing claim itself is fundamentally illogical: Other video angles show no flickering wing, undercutting the idea that the hologram was malfunctioning. And flickering like this simply does not happen in 3D animation unless the artist programs it to happen, thus eliminating the TV fakery hypothesis.
Markus Icke's argues that the plane was misshapen, with a "port-wing anomaly" that resulted in a droopy left wing. This argument arises from the fact that he used two images that had differing aspect ratios: one was stretched vertically compared to the other, creating a difference in their shapes. When this is corrected, the "port wing anomaly" disappears.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
