Please cite your best evidence of "no-planes"

This comp was done a few years ago by a guy named Equinox. What he failed to point out was the barge, (left of tower 2) which is 150-200 feet long. The towers were 208 ft wide and a boeing 767-222 is around 168 ft. The plane would have to scale to around 80% of the towers. It is literally a dot compared to the towers and other objects near them. This is full proof of what so many people saw and described, whether they laughed at it, said it was a much smaller plane or mistook it for a chopper. The object was considerably smaller than a Police Helicopter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge

 

The object was moving at a snails pace compared to a real plane. The object disappears behind the north tower at 2:21 and four seconds later (2:25) fire starts in the front of T2. It took four long seconds to circle around between the rear of the towers. Let me spell this out for you in clear English: It travelled 208 ft across the rear of T1, then the distance between the towers, around 100 feet. It then turned right along the west side of T2, and finally left across the rear of it. That's at least 600 feet in four seconds. 150 ft. per second is around 100 mph. Its laughable speed and movement bear no resemblance to a chopper or plane. You can't change facts and real aircraft comparisons such as these. The object was not a plane, never will be, and you full well know it, by now at least. STOP AGREEING WITH ME, LEFTY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIF9OT7GeW4
https://www.google.com/#q=feet+per+second+to+mph

[/URL]

 

So lets see here....you're attempting to compare the clear image of a plane with the blurry image of a plane and then attempting to pass that off as apples to apples comparison, correct?

Are you so daft you do not understand the failed process and logic of your comparison?

 

Yep. About the same as a helicopter. And in the news evening they clearly edited the background, removed the ball and added the fake plane. The NBC fake plane comes from a totally different angle than the ball yet you clearly see it's the same video as in the live broadcast. If debunker only took the time to notice that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKq2K2dh6k

 

Nope,fail

try again

<hint> there were more than just one camera angle that day

 

Not in NBC's case if we talk about the footage they took from their helicopter and the one they showed in the evening. You can see that the towers are exactly the same in both cases yet in the evening news the plane is shown where the ball was not during the morning live broadcast. They show an inexistent plane in the evening.

''Note that no plane is seen in any of the NBC's live images''...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKq2K2dh6k#t=230

 

Note: That is an outright lie,period

In addition to live coverage,cameras recording and plain old Mark 1 eyeballs,ALL of themshowed,recorded or saw a plane


this no plane line of hogwash is beyond retarded.

 

and you can swear to that under penalty of perjury?

I think not. umpteen hand hearsay.

you have nothing.

 

when you have dark image on a bright background its impossible.

Anyone who knows anything about graphics fundamentals knows that.

The pics below prove it does not happen even with near colors unless they are nearly identical.

I already proved that, why do you insist on holding your fingers in your ears and spouting the same dablunder fantasy mantra after its been proven wrong? Which dablunder website did you get that from anyway?

What kind of person would continue to spout known false information anyway?

Here is a refresher for those with Alzheimers,

that comparison is as legitimate as the rest of your bogus arguments. Why you insist on digging your hole all the way to china is beyond me when I can take every damn picture you use and prove that its bull(*)(*)(*)(*) for all to see.

That is why I made that directory so people can simply download these pictures and pound them up the asses of the debunkers who make those bogus claims on their websites.

The differences are nearly indistinguishable. They certainly DO NOT COMPROMISE the photo like you would have everyone believe and the idea that it would subtract the wings of black airplanes on a brite blue background is complete over the top loonacy.


FROM YOUR LINK:

Go ahead tell us WHAT has been compromised!






Without checking tell me which one is the 8bit conversion and which one is the 24bit original.








the pictures on your site look like they did a 4 bit conversion and then reconverted the 4 bit results to an 8 bit just to make it extremely obvious.

go ahead keep digging that hole deeper!

This proves for the umteenth time that these dablunderer web sites are dealing without a full deck!


Black plane with no wings on very light blue background and NO WINGS! What happened the compressor go out to lunch and someone snuck in and edited a bunch of blobs for an April fools day prank.




you can blame gifs and compression for what is not in the original videos till hell freezes over and it wont do you any good when the TRUTH is in your face!

now that we have proven beyond even an unreasonable doubt that GIFS do not subtract plane parts from images we can get back to looking at all that fake CGI video and investigate why all those plane vids have been faked on one level or another.

All these dablunder websites do is waste everyones time and (*)(*)(*)(*) up the noobs.

 

and how much does the flight angle change on an alleged plane moving an alleged 586mph over 400 feet? .0000000000000001 degree maybe?

theres no wing! On either side! LMAO





Sun is not on this side of the plane LMAO

so how does that impossible happen?

Better go back to the dablunder website or where ever you got that crap from and let them know that a truther is handing the whole lot of ya your asses and you need some help.

 

I honestly do not understand the idiocy of anyone actually thinking aircraft did not hit the WTC Towers.

I watched the second plane strike on TV and it was clear and obvious that it was an aircraft.

AboveAlpha

 

He doesn't show that he understands much of anything, which makes this so much more amusing.

 

therefore the conclusion is that:

tv = real!

does not satand up in any court in the land but its good enough for the OSHuggers!






have you considered you are a victim of your own mind?

there is still (since 200 that 100,000 reward for anyone who can show up with a real plane impact that would withstand the rigors of process..

 

Honestly,he's not worth the trouble responding to..

 

Well it seems mention magnification Vs resolution is now considered flamebait around here

 

Unbelievable!

You have stated so many things that can be scientifically proven wrong that it is not even worth responding.

AboveAlpha

 

really?

That is a scientific test, done by psychologists. It shows how flaky people are and supports courts when the last thing on the believable lists are witnesses.

How come debunkers are always void any bountiful scientific anything that would support your claims?

Didnt the debunkers do their homework? I mean once upon a time they had all the answers and now days its a vacuum!

If you can prove ANYTHING scientifically wrong I would actually enjoy a rousing debate rather than than the usual hide and seek that debunkers who cant back anything they up play out here. Flushing them out from under every pebble of sand gets boring after a while.

 

I have already upon other posts as this provided a vast amount of scientific evidence that ot just supports but provides 100% PROOF that 2 aircraft impacted the WTC Towers.

Least of which is the radar tracks and transponder coded signals of the aircraft which were tracked from takeoff to impacting the towers.

There are as well multiple commercial and military satellite photography and as well your analogy about eye witness court testimony is dead wrong.

A person who is charged with Murder where no evidence has been shown as to motive and no weapon has been found will ALWAYS be convicted by both Jury and Judge of murder based upon the testimony of 3 credible witnesses who say they saw this person murder another.

AboveAlpha

 

Unless an unmarked plane joined the ball, then no plane was really there. That's all I'm saying for now, because explaining why so many people described different things requires those in the mental health field to offer case-studies that eyewitness accounts are often incorrect. The difference here are the numerous live broadcasts that show an object and the nose-out blunder. The 911 eyewitnesses have corroboration unlike twa and many other cases.

 

What type of aircraft do you think it was?

 

you have not provided any such thing. 10th hand hearsay is garbage.

The only 3 clips where an impact can be seen are grossly obvious cgi fakes.

Radar signatures? Only takes a few minutes to edit anything you want for a radar signature, and claiming that the war games signatures are real is just bogus from top down.

what you fail to understand is that witness testimony has the least credibility of all other forms of evidence second to hearsay. FOrensic evidence trumps ALL witness testimony, PERIOD! So your no evidence conviction doesnt even apply though I am sure you put all your eggs in that bank.

 

You're blind..the plane wasn't 'unmarked'

Period

 

So a video that shows a plane but cannot resolve, or is at an angle by which it does not show, identifying markings is invalid? YES, because none show markings, even those filmed very close, like a block away.

4 videos showing an amorphorous orb which you cannot prove was anything but that orb is proof that it existed along with the eyewitnesses on the ground who described it.

That and only that fuzzy blob is apparently valid because it aired live three times and also on cbs. Yes it is valid for those four simple facts.

No comment, no supposition no theory or even wild imaginary guess as to what the unmarked plane images you call flight 175 really were? Those black smudges easily observed in forty or so amateur videos are nothing, unless of course you're settling on the military plane hoax theory?

 

there was plane,not an 'amorphourous blob',that was the product of poorly rendered video,coupled with troother lies....And a good dose of bad eyesight

 

An image captured only contains so much information - That is resolution. You magnify that image you dont increase resolution because the information is simply not there to see. So if an image of a jet is captured and you can not make out the logo as any more than a black smudge. Increasing the magnification of the black smudge does nothing more than make a bigger black smudge.