• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can YOU Debunk This?

Why are these evil conspirators always faking video of events that all kinds of people saw?
 
First of all, I didn't see a plane in that video; just a fireball.

The producer of the video is essentially claiming the fireball is faked.

So this leads me to wonder why the video faker(s) didn't just add a plane to the faked video.

Anyhow, can anyone here tell me why his analysis is wrong. Why isn't the fireball different sizes in each video?
 
Sizzler said:
First of all, I didn't see a plane in that video; just a fireball.
Click to expand...

Toward the very end you see the plane, though they start the clips on the one frame that the plane comes into view:

1110200881531pmcy5.jpg
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Toward the very end you see the plane, though they start the clips on the one frame that the plane comes into view:

[qimg]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/152/1110200881531pmcy5.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

From that video alone, it is not apparent that it is a plane. I admit I see a thin white thingy which seems to be traveling at a high velocity, but using this video alone, I cannot say it looks like, or is a plane, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If one adds eye-witness testimony and debris found at the crash site, it becomes more likely that the white thingy is the front end of a plane.

I guess my point was, if the video is faked, why not add an image of a plane that is more easily distinguishable from analysis of the video alone?

Any ideas as to why the fireballs appear to be the same size?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Toward the very end you see the plane, though they start the clips on the one frame that the plane comes into view:

[qimg]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/152/1110200881531pmcy5.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That's not the plane that you have highlighted; it's the smoke coming from the starboard engine. At the very far left of the area you highlighted you can see the tail of the plane.

As for the OP, calculate how far away the two respective cameras were from the point of impact, then tell us how different the fireballs should look. I'm guessing that the fireball from the forward camera should be maybe 1% or so larger than the fireball from the guard shack; too small a difference to be observed on grainy video. And that's before we talk about the effects of the fish-eye lens.
 
One word.

Perspective.

When you conspiracy theorists grasp this concept come back and we'll talk. The person that made that video has no grasp of lens theory.
 
Sizzler said:
From that video alone, it is not apparent that it is a plane. I admit I see a thin white thingy which seems to be traveling at a high velocity, but using this video alone, I cannot say it looks like, or is a plane, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

The videos are crap quality... but the youtub video doesn't acknowledge them in the footage. It's my nit pick for the day...
 
Brainster said:
That's not the plane that you have highlighted; it's the smoke coming from the starboard engine. At the very far left of the area you highlighted you can see the tail of the plane.

As for the OP, calculate how far away the two respective cameras were from the point of impact, then tell us how different the fireballs should look. I'm guessing that the fireball from the forward camera should be maybe 1% or so larger than the fireball from the guard shack; too small a difference to be observed on grainy video. And that's before we talk about the effects of the fish-eye lens.
Click to expand...

when object A is 200 feet away from camera 1...and 190 feet away from camera 2...the difference in size of the two images is negligable.

debunked.

:D
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Maybe video expert Mangoose can?

Click to expand...

Considering the minimal distance between the two cameras compared with the great distance of the impact from each camera, the difference in the size and perspective of the fireball would be quite negligible. Debunked.

Edit: Parky beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
Debunk what? There's nothing to debunk here. Obviously you haven't considered what is the difference of anything seen at a much further distance.
Is this all you have?
 
wow...debunking is getting easier and easier. too bad this guy probably spent like 23 hours putting this nonesense together.

i suggest volleyball, softball, hiking, knitting, bird watching, rock climbing,....
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Maybe video expert Mangoose can?
Click to expand...

According to CIT's flight path and Rob Balsamo's animated video, eyewitnesses should have seen and heard this as AA 77 flew towards, over, and away from the Pentagon:



Can you debunk CIT and P4t?
 
bje said:
According to CIT's flight path and Rob Balsamo's animated video, eyewitnesses should have seen and heard this as AA 77 flew towards, over, and away from the Pentagon:



Can you debunk CIT and P4t?
Click to expand...


They are self-debunking. Just add water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom