Also the "super slow-mo" analysis was not done on the original footage. It's done on a video that has been artificially time-stretched. Time stretching adds missing frames using a prediction algorithm that is not very accurate. So you have a computer "guess" what a frame (or several frames) might look like between two actual frames of the original video. This guessing will produce glitching and artefacting. Therefore to use a time-stretched video for actual forensic analysis is just..., well, it's frankly retarded. Something like that would never be admissible in court for example.
The fact that doctored footage was used for "evidence" in this video, shows the creator is either not aware of how digital time-stretching works, or he is being dishonest. Either way, it discredits him from being any sort of expert in video forensics. Show me the original undoctored footage, and then we can look again.
You surely don't believe an airplane crashes into a building like the video shows? Melts into the bldg.?
Aside from your other statements.
Well you tell me. From 18 different angles:
https://youtu.be/7YLm3pkAiJQ
The guy in the OP video was located in such a way that he could not see any plane, whether there was one or not. So that video is not evidence of anything. In addition it uses disingenous video forensics, like I said, which gives me a smelly smell of the whole narrative in the video.
Also, none of these no-plane videos explain the angled gash that was formed at the impact site, nor do they explain the trajectory of the debris, which is consistent with the momentum of an impact on the other side.
So yeah, to me the evidence points to a plane, possibly loaded with explosives. I don't buy the no-plane theory at all, but I don't mind changing my opinion if better evidence surfaces. So far the evidence is lacking, poor quality and poor analysis, and poor deductive reasoning used. Not convincing.
>Well you tell me>>
I asked you first lol. Seriously, planes don't vanish into bldgs., they crumble.
This is like a cartoon.
Whether planes or no planes, the video can't be taken seriously (that one should be dropped out of the plane-no plane argument).
I'm not going to go over the other points, been there done that, have work to do and shouldn't even be yapping on here right now....was making sure you were sane, or at least reasonable.
Are you "AreWeSure" from Voat?
is the best. Very close, and you can see that the explosion and debris shoot out faster on the opposite the plane hits, as you'd expect. If it were say explosives, they'd have to do a lot more to have that asymmetry.
You surely don't believe an airplane crashes into a building like the video shows? Melts into the bldg.?
So you're saying "the science is settled, we have a consensus"? That's not very skeptical or scientific of you. You want there to be no planes involved because that supports your preferred bias and theories. That does not make for truth. We have to question everything with 9/11 because the real truth is complex and obfuscated to hell. Don't let your passion cloud you skeptical judgment. Explore every angle because after all, if you believe DEWs and Tesla weapons are plausible explanations, then airplanes and explosives are as well.
Fair enough. But I was simply stating the obvious about one particular plane video, planes crumble, they don't do cartoon cutouts.
Maybe somebody has an explanation (though I've heard some of them no doubt, "the speed of the plane" etc.)
(post is archived)