Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the end of 1999, all major market TV stations were required by the FCC to be transmitting digital broadcasts, which just kills your nonsensical claim that digital video didn't exist in 2001. Digital video in television has existed since the early 1990's, and the proof of that is the launch of Direct TV in 1994 ... which IS DIGITAL ... there is no such thing as analog satellite TV.
You're confusing the delivery mechanism with the input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
But this is just a side note to illustrate how clueless and out of touch with reality you are.
But this is just a side note to illustrate how clueless and out of touch with reality you are.
You shouldn't attempt to use your knowledge of specific technologies to further your position if you don't know anything about those specific technologies. Your lack of understanding of broadcasting and your proud display of such is yet another example of why nobody should consider your opinion relevant. If you're not even clear about broadcast technology, why should we listen to you when it comes to video manipulation at the level you're suggesting?
Keep going, though - you're remarkably entertaining.
You're confusing the delivery mechanism with the input.
But this is just a side note to illustrate how clueless and out of touch with reality you are.
You shouldn't attempt to use your knowledge of specific technologies to further your position if you don't know anything about those specific technologies. Your lack of understanding of broadcasting and your proud display of such is yet another example of why nobody should consider your opinion relevant. If you're not even clear about broadcast technology, why should we listen to you when it comes to video manipulation at the level you're suggesting?
Keep going, though - you're remarkably entertaining.
And yet ... you say absolutely nothing. No content ... no example ... just rhetoric.
Tell me what I am so confused about ... so that I can send you to bed without dinner too. That's why you provide no content ... you know what will happen.
You see, here's how it happened...
(keep in mind George W. Bush and Obama are working together)
So, George Bush wants cheaper gas and for the USA to be boomin' again.
He wants war with Iraq and Afghanistan, so he calls up his friend Osama, puts a few bombs in the World Trade Center and has Osama crash a couple planes into it- the USA is in chaos, plans going good.
Bush sends troops, years of war (that didn't help the economy contrary to belief of what it would do)
So Bush knows he's in a fix.
He has this guy named Obama to help him fix things and restore his good name.
Obama keeps the troops in place, but understands he can consolidate power from the US if he kills Osama, so he sends ST6 to do it.
With Osama dead, the droi--- err Al Qaida army will shut-down, although smaller leaders may re-activate the army and rise up against our empi--err troops in the country
Once we fix a few holes in the country, we'll pull out and the world will be at peace, and Bush and Obama can rule the world peacefully together!
__________
I'll believe the gov't for now, until any actual proof comes out that shows me otherwise.
YOU, yes YOU are the one spouting out "CGI planes and people"...YOU yes YOU are the one saying about the 'see through people'....yet
yet
..
.
. yet YOU with all you KNOWLEDGE about analog/digital..have never addressed one thing "digital noise"...that is where the COMPUTER in the digital pictures fills in the blanks with what it BELIEVES should be there
sometimes it appears as snow..sometimes it appears as 'see through' backgrounds, etc
yet YOU are the one DENYING this...YOU are the one saying the planes were CGI, ...why...????..because you cant ACCEPT that the blur coming out the opposite side of the impact is debris...so it must be CGI....or is it because YOU are so DETERMINED to make it one big 'government' conspiracy..just like chemtrails, fluoride, population controll..all "massive (worldwide) government conspiracies...that YOU have posted about in DOZENS of threads
fact is, YOU are you own worst case against this being a massive conspiracy
its been nearly 10 years....show me one person who has blown the whistle....show me one person who would have been involved in the YEARS to set this up, and to wire a not just one building but 3 or more....you are taking about THOUSANDS of people in on this conspiracy....show me ONE
According to a theory espoused in 'September Clues', and other videos advocating 9/11 TV Fakery/No-Planes Theory, a piece of live news footage showing United Airlines Flight 175 hitting the South Tower shows the plane apparently entering the building and then exiting unscathed the other side, shortly before a 'fade to black'. It is argued therefore that, as a plane could not possibly have entered the building and emerged undamaged, the plane that is shown is in fact a CGI image, overlayed in real time onto footage of the Twin Towers, and that the 'plane' is shown apparently emerging from the building because of a timing error on the part of the TV Fakery team.
This issue has been addressed both in a debunking video made by a UK 'truther' and in the recent Hardfire debate between Ace Baker and Steve Wright. However, I would like to add my own contribution to debunking this spurious claim.
It is very simple to demonstrate the utter falsity of the 'nose out' CGI plane claim by simply examining a few stills from the footage. It is quite clear from the following images that the supposed 'plane nose' is really nothing of the sort.
If this was a CGI plane image accidentally emerging, as opposed to debris, we would expect the shape of the plane's nose to remain constant, not to change. Yet, when we look at these stills from the news footage, it is clear that this is not the case:
The author
Edmund Standing holds an MA in Critical & Cultural Theory, and lives in England. He is dedicated to rationalism and genuinely critical thinking and is the author of a number of articles at butterfliesandwheels.com, including 'The Pseudo-Science of the "9/11 Truth" Movement'. He also maintains an occasional blog exposing the misinformation promoted by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Retrieved from "http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Nose_out"
I was going to tell you the story about the ostrich ... but ergo beat me to it.
Go ahead - I have him on ignore. Nothing he writes EVER contributes to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
So I will just provide a famous quote ... "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".
Don't be so quick to make those kinds of accusations.
A lot of people - including myself - were interested in these theories when they started popping up in the first few years after the event. We examined the theories and evidence with a completely open mind, and concluded that it was all a bunch of nonsense.
That's what I mean by you crying wolf. We're tired of wasting (yes, wasting) our time checking out the "evidence" that people like you have been providing for the last decade, so, generally speaking, we don't. After the first four or five years of looking at that useless, albeit creative, nonsense, we're pretty much done with giving any serious consideration to what you guys say. Don't blame us - it's your own fault.
I can't speak for others - I know that some have a personal interest in promoting the truth to people like you, as they had friends and/or relatives that died that day - but for me, I view these threads as entertainment. Nothing more. I wouldn't spend any amount of time investigating whether or not the little spider robots from Minority Report actually exist - and that's all you've got. Little spider robots, concocted from your own imagination, and you're on your Internet soapbox shouting about them to anybody who will listen.
And yet ... you say absolutely nothing. No content ... no example ... just rhetoric.
Tell me what I am so confused about ... so that I can send you to bed without dinner too. That's why you provide no content ... you know what will happen.
Sorry. I have work to do. I have no interest in wasting my time educating you about a topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. If you can't understand and accept that, then... I don't know. Maybe get some air and clear your head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
