NO PLANERS EXPOSED----->INSIDE+WeAreChangeColorado

[iks83]

error 404...  yay for the no planers

[sekular]

voskhod3:

your argumentative approach and a complete lack of logic, as well as your trollish attitude is highly suspect.

you have not replied to anything i have actually said, all your do is repeat the same questions, even after i have attempted to answer them. you talk about video like you understand it like an "expert" but yet when confronted on the matter you choose to ignore the questions.

this to me is highly suspect as you do not have the willingness to engage in an intelligent debate. We are serious individuals, who are sincere in what we think we have found. I take it as an insult when you say that i am trying to malicious sabotage the 911 movement. Do you think i would have spent hours studying the 911 media footage and spent years collecting footage if i was out to sabotage the movement.

so i would like you to rethink your position.

[Infokrieger]

So the "nose out" in September Clues is good except for the micro-precision LIE (no other word for it) which you think is "utter baloney"?

I'm NOT talking about September Clues. I already told you that. I can see the "nose-out" effect / illusion / pixel-mess / plane nose whatever it is on relatively high quality videos (compared to youtube that is) from archive.org.

What about the anti aliasing in the "nose out" in September Clues... that is equally deceptive? What do you say?

I'm not arguing in favor of September Clues, so I don't have to speak to that. But, in all fairness, if the film maker used anti aliasing to enhance the "precision", I'd call that deceptive, absolutely.
 

No strawman from me!

Yes, you used the strawman several times on me by putting words in my mouth. You accused me of saying there were no planes, you still keep attacking September Clues (the strawman) while ignoring what I wrote, you keep twisting my words, using loaded questions... pretending not to know the question I'm asking you.. I don't get it, I checked out some of your latest postings on the board, you seem to be a pretty level-headed guy. That's why I was asking why you're reacting so emotional, acting like a troll in this topic, accusing people left and right, calling people names, talking down on them.

Why is the notion that the media might have doctored the footage so offensive to you? They have lied about building 7, haven't they? Are you working for the media? Not that this is a bad thing, don't get me wrong on this. I'm just wondering why you're reacting so emotional while I stay so damn cool.

It's debris and the engine that landed on Murray Street. Backed up by the fact that an engine landed in Murray Street.

That might very well be the case. The engine has the greatest weight and will continue its momentum while the aluminum parts of the plane wouldn't make it that far. Can you back it up? I'll google for "Murray Street" in the meantime.

Finally you're answering my question, was that so hard?

[Voskhod3]

your argumentative approach and a complete lack of logic, as well as your trollish attitude is highly suspect.

My arguments are always completely logical.

Unlike any no-planes argument.

you have not replied to anything i have actually said, all your do is repeat the same questions,

I do until I get an answer.
It works.
Check out the Moon Hoax thread, I got a hoax believer to eventually debunk his own post.

even after i have attempted to answer them. you talk about video like you understand it like an "expert" but yet when confronted on the matter you choose to ignore the questions.

What questions?

We are serious individuals,

No.. you are perpetuating disinfo.

who are sincere in what we think we have found.

You are sincerely perpetuation disinfo.

I take it as an insult when you say that i am trying to malicious sabotage the 911 movement.

No... No-planers are doing that. FACT!

Do you think i would have spent hours studying the 911 media footage and spent years collecting footage if i was out to sabotage the movement.

Your footage studies ate total bullsh*t.

Go and watch the September Clues Debunked video on Google Video.

so i would like you to rethink your position.

I think you should rethink yours!

[sekular]

no hope for the simple minded (please note first attack)


go watch wrestling

[Voskhod3]

So how did they control the witnesses and their recorded images for the second impact?

[grapecrusher1]

no hope for the simple minded (please note first attack)
go watch wrestling

voskhod3 here is your proof, now i would like to hear what you have to say about this...

http://tinyurl.com/ls44lo

I thought you were going to finally say something.  Here is your proof comes up 404  -- what is with that? please explain as it was already highlighted for your correction.  I looked through your posts and you really have nothing to say except for unsubstantianted rhetoric (in the true definition of the word) seemingly arguing for the NOPLANE nonsense theory. 
consider this an attack if you wish

[sekular]

there is no proof that will convince you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

"The bigger the lie the more people will believe it" A.Hitler

[grapecrusher1]

there is no proof that will convince you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

"The bigger the lie the more people will believe it" A.Hitler

Sekularized have you rechecked your link previously provided? or are you merely marginalizing yourself further by employing Chretien as your spokesperson? And thus reinforcing the previous conjecture that you have nothing to say, really.

[sekular]

excuse me i think you have misunderstood

[grapecrusher1]

voskhod3 here is your proof, now i would like to hear what you have to say about this...

http://tinyurl.com/ls44lo

.
This is the link i wish to have clarified if you need help translating my last post further I will, I say that with caution on your behalf.   

[kushfiend]

Go back to sleep Vokshad, your govt. is in control lol 

[Voskhod3]

Go back to sleep Vokshad, your govt. is in control lol 

Do you understand anything about video compression?

[9/11FalseFlag]

Very good video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZryf1sZBQc&feature=PlayList&p=7EA2472A0606A350&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=62

Please watch especially at 3m 14s  NO PLANE IN THE VIDEO and then they ADD IT IN
What more proof do you need, come on now

[9/11FalseFlag]

Phone Interviews with many of the original camera men of the WTC attacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0nl_ZY3D04&feature=PlayList&p=7EA2472A0606A350&index=64

More and more proof of no planes hate to say it

[Voskhod3]

More and more proof of no planes hate to say it

So how did they control the witnesses and their recorded images for the second impact?

[Infokrieger]

Do you understand anything about video compression?

I do. Some people might not. Make your argument. What you're doing is saying "video compression" over and over. That is not an argument. That's like a picture of Hamburger instead of a Hamburger. So, video compression what? And please don't start deflecting again. You got the floor.

[Voskhod3]

I do. Some people might not. Make your argument. What you're doing is saying "video compression" over and over. That is not an argument. That's like a picture of Hamburger instead of a Hamburger. So, video compression what? And please don't start deflecting again. You got the floor.

Do you understand what video compression does to compress an image?

Do you know what happens when a video is expanded and pixels have to be generated to fill the space?

[TheCaliKid]

The thing is, I actually remember the news coverage on Sept. 11, as well as the next 2 days.  It was just a smoking building, and footage of the World Trade Center buildings collapsing over and over.  It wasn't until the next few days after 9/11 that footage and images of the planes emerged, all from very mysterious sources, but I won't go into that now.

This is true.

[Infokrieger]

Do you understand what video compression does to compress an image?

Not again. I'm asking you a question and you're weaseling around the answer. What does video compression do to compress an image? You tell me.

Do you know what happens when a video is expanded and pixels have to be generated to fill the space?

Tell us. What does this have to do with the images at hand? You got the floor.

You're a girl, right? No offense, but I'm 100% sure you're a girl by the way you're acting all emotional here.

[Voskhod3]

Not again. I'm asking you a question and you're weaseling around the answer. What does video compression do to compress an image? You tell me.

It changes it, sometimes drastically.

Now can you tell me what video compression was used on the picture you keep showing, how many compressions and expansions its been through, and then can you tell me what was used to magify it and what the computer did when it was expanded... of and can you tell me if any anti-aliasing has been used.

Thanks.

[Infokrieger]

Now can you tell me what video compression was used on the picture you keep showing

I didn't post or show any picture. At all. You're doing it again. You are asking me questions about things I never said, did or posted. Get your facts straight, lady.

how many compressions and expansions its been through,

How would I know? Did I make the picture? Did I make the film? No!

and then can you tell me what was used to magify it

You sound like a crazy person. Did I magnify the picture? No!

and what the computer did when it was expanded... of and can you tell me if any anti-aliasing has been used.

I don't know. Was any anti-aliasing used? Do you have proof for that? You are babbling incoherently, you're making the truth movement sound like mindless kooks and I have had enough of it.

[Voskhod3]

Sorry, I got confused, you and kushfiend are pushing the same stuff.

You've got to produce a "nose out" video that you've examined and prove it's a fake as you claim.

[Infokrieger]

Another accusation. I'm not pushing anything, and I don't agree with anyone else on this thread. I have explained my stance to you at least 5 times, and you still don't get it right.

I told you, I believe there were planes. But, apparently you are not interested in an honest discussion, you're just acting here. Everyone who is not with you is against you. So you put me in the same category with everybody else. I've had it with you.

I'm done answering to your blabber. You're making everyone look bad. Bye bye young lady.

[Voskhod3]

Wrong, you can see the effect on the original videos, too. Go to archive.org and check it out for yourself. Nose-out is not "a lie". Be precise, what exactly is a lie, and how?

You're still pushing "nose out".

So lets discuss your videos.

[Infokrieger]

You're still pushing "nose out".

So lets discuss your videos.

"nose out" doesn't mean "no planes". At least not in my book. I have explained that.

My videos? What do you mean? I said "videos from archive.org" (though I am not sure whether they are still on there). Can you find the video for yourself or do you need help? Seriously, I could help you find it IF you have an open mind and I'm not wasting my time.

[Voskhod3]

Can you find the video for yourself or do you need help?

Can you link it.

You said "nose out" is not a lie.

But it is, unless you going to get semantic.

[9/11FalseFlag]

Voskhod you're great at ignoring good claims and then asking other questions unrelated!  Just look at this video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZryf1sZBQc#t=3m12s

No plane, then a plane is ADDED.  I mean come on now, you think you've woke up but you're still sleep walking.

Okay maybe exposing this no plane thing is bad for the movement, but I'm sorry there is just too much evidence of video fakery.  It's just so fricking blatant.
Can any of you who don't think the videos on 911 were tampered with explain this video at 3mins 12 seconds?? HELLO???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZryf1sZBQc#t=3m12s

[kushfiend]

Voskhod you're great at ignoring good claims and then asking other questions unrelated!  Just look at this video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZryf1sZBQc#t=3m12s

No plane, then a plane is ADDED.  I mean come on now, you think you've woke up but you're still sleep walking.

Okay maybe exposing this no plane thing is bad for the movement, but I'm sorry there is just too much evidence of video fakery.  It's just so fricking blatant.
Can any of you who don't think the videos on 911 were tampered with explain this video at 3mins 12 seconds?? HELLO???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZryf1sZBQc#t=3m12s

You're wasting your breath, Vok is a govt. shill that won't argue facts

[iks83]

Voskhod you're great at ignoring good claims and then asking other questions unrelated!  Just look at this video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZryf1sZBQc#t=3m12s

No plane, then a plane is ADDED.  I mean come on now, you think you've woke up but you're still sleep walking.

Okay maybe exposing this no plane thing is bad for the movement, but I'm sorry there is just too much evidence of video fakery.  It's just so fricking blatant.
Can any of you who don't think the videos on 911 were tampered with explain this video at 3mins 12 seconds?? HELLO???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZryf1sZBQc#t=3m12s

What is the source of the video? When did it surface? How do you know the plane hasn't been removed and then a fake plane added later? Where is the video from? The guy who made the video should know right? But there is no information about that. Its weird how you people believe that fake planes can be rendered into live footage but somehow it isnt possible to remove a plane from a video 7 years after the fact. Even I would be able to do that since it really arent many frames you have to change, you could do it manually frame by frame and wont be able to find out after a new encoding of the video. Gimme a HQ video and I edit the plane out for you.

[Voskhod3]

You're wasting your breath, Vok is a govt. shill that won't argue facts

I'm one of the few who deals in facts.

Just how did they control the thousands witnesses and their recorded images?

[Voskhod3]

Hey I found this.

This is smoking gun evidence of a faked WTC impact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6oFU84H3k&feature=channel_page

Now I'm changing my mind.

[sekular]

Do you understand what video compression does to compress an image?

Do you know what happens when a video is expanded and pixels have to be generated to fill the space?

ok lets see how much you know about video compression, well yea get ready for some wikipedia pastes. well i thought you were the one asking for experts, are you a video expert ? do you work in audio ? do you work in a studio ? please do tell us your so expertise.

video compression would not alter the point he is showing you in that picture, i could convert that to a gif and you could still see the building is still intact and the plane has disappeared. i will post a video to show you what a plane looks like when it crashes into cement.

but please let us get back to your knowledge on video. how can the point you mentioned earlier make any difference to every single one of the points that people have mentioned in the footages.

you say uhh what about compression, but you don't realy understand what compression is. todays video compression, the codecs, have come a long way at retaining quality and reducing size. so your attempt at stated the video is some how misinterpret the video because we are not sufficiently knowledgeable about video and audio is preposterous.

edit: here is the video plane and concrete : http://udn1.com/plane and concrete.avi

[Infokrieger]

I'm one of the few who deals in facts.

Just how did they control the thousands witnesses and their recorded images?

OK, name at least 1000 eye witnesses then and proof for each and every one of them, that they were really there and could see the event. You said thousands of witnesses, so name at least a 1000 so we know you're not just repeating a line you heard on some radio show. You're dealing in facts, right? So, establish this fact for us.

You don't have to know all the names by yourself. Just post a link to a list of at least 1000 witnesses. That will do.

If you can't do that, tell me what constitutes a fact for you. Let's establish some real facts here, NOT based on what we saw on TV.

Just to remind everyone, I'm the guy who believes there were in fact planes on 9/11, but the pictures we saw on TV were obviously altered, manipulated and faked. So, what proof do you have that they were not faked? The media lied to you before, didn't they? They even showed you a CGI Bin Laden confessing. Do you believe that?

[Voskhod3]

you say uhh what about compression, but you don't realy understand what compression is. todays video compression, the codecs, have come a long way at retaining quality and reducing size.

Yes.. so can you tell me what codecs the pictures you keep posting have been through.

Thanks.

[/quote]
edit: here is the video plane and concrete : http://udn1.com/plane and concrete.avi
[/quote]

Irrelevant.

The WTC wasn't solid concrete and was in fact 43% nothing (but glass).

[sekular]

a plane with aluminum fuselage will not slice through steel and concrete even when travelling at the maximum speed possible at the altitude of a building like wtc. the plane would break apart as it hits the steel outside and possible some of it might go through the windows like the titanium engines. but it would most definitely not leave a plane shaped hole in the building. it is just not possible.

[White Rose Sophie]

The WTC wasn't solid concrete and was in fact 43% nothing (but glass).

Wasn't there a fair bit of steel involved in the WTC construction?  And wasn't it built to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707 from the beginning?

In that video - I don't see much 'glass' breaking, do you?   

I do believe something hit it, but a 757 I have my doubts about. 

[sekular]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibtV8yITqa4

[Voskhod3]

Wasn't there a fair bit of steel involved in the WTC construction?  And wasn't it built to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707 from the beginning?

In that video - I don't see much 'glass' breaking, do you?  

I do believe something hit it, but a 757 I have my doubts about.  

It's 43% glass.



43% nothing but glass.

Go on.. do some geometry.

[Infokrieger]

And wasn't it built to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707 from the beginning?

"Withstand" as in "not collapse" yes. "Withstand" as in "the plane would not crash into it but be deflected somehow".. erm.. no.