POLL: 9/11 staged?

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: fisher
because he's a troll. period. read anything he's posted. i'd also be willing to bet he's not really a pilot (outside of maybe microsoft flight sim).

I believe he's a pilot, but he has such an elaborate fictional universe constructed that it's pointless to respond to anything he writes (or even read it for that matter).

good point.

 

[imported_Tomato]

Originally posted by: nan0bug
While I don't think 9/11 was staged, I do think that there is a very good possibility someone in the upper eschelons[sp?] of government may have allowed it to happen, either through inaction or actually delaying the flow of intelligence.

However, regardless of if that's true or not, it doesn't change the fact that the people who hijacked those planes were not government employees, and even if 9/11 were stopped before it could happen, it would have only been delaying the inevitable.

 

[Balt]

The answer is "no"

Even if your wiring were bad enough to believe that it was desirable for the Bush Administration to plan this, the 9/11 plans were already being executed long before Bush even won the election. I doubt Bill and George colluded on this one, and given how close the election was, Bush had no way of knowing that he would be in office to 'benefit' from this tragedy.

This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I've ever heard of, quite frankly. There is no question that we dropped the ball by allowing it to happen, but planned it? Please.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Balt
The answer is "no"

Even if your wiring were bad enough to believe that it was desirable for the Bush Administration to plan this, the 9/11 plans were already being executed long before Bush even won the election. I doubt Bill and George colluded on this one, and given how close the election was, Bush had no way of knowing that he would be in office to 'benefit' from this tragedy.

This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I've ever heard of, quite frankly. There is no question that we dropped the ball by allowing it to happen, but planned it? Please.

You've overlooked the fact that this doesn't by any means whatsoever rule out the possibility of the "they knew about it but did nothing to stop it" theory. Even I don't believe the U.S. Government was the sole power behind 9/11, and I'm certifiable

 

[tcsenter]

What in the world does that have to do with anything? You sure seem to have some weird obsession with Fox and Alien Autopsy, btw. I doubt anything I say would possibly convince you that I'm right. Just out of curiousity: did you even check out the other link I provided? It's much more relevant than the first. And in response to your previous post about NORAD and the like, yes, I'm well aware of how "homeland air defense" was scaled back in the 90's but your naivete shows itself once again.

It is very interesting that someone claiming to be "well aware" of the dramatic reduction in NORAD interceptors, crews, and bases during the 1990s would have ever offered NORAD policy dated before the downsizing as any sort of evidence of NORAD's capabilities in 2001. Would you also offer a textbook dated 2000 as "evidence" of the capabilities possessed by science in the 1940s? lol!

Again, I see that you refuse to provide just one person with any sort of sound credentials who can support your fantasy that the Bin Laden tape could be faked. Here, in good faith, because that's the kind of guy I am, let me start things off by offering testimony from one of the many special effects experts who have gone on record to say it cannot be faked:

Simon Gosling is a senior producer at the London-based Moving Picture Company, which creates post-production special effects for the film, music video, and commercial industries. He describes one possible method for how such a videotape could be faked: "First of all, what they would do is take footage of any old conversation between bin Laden and an associate. You would track the movement of bin Laden's head -- of course, he turns his face while he's conversing like anyone would. So the first thing the 3-D [three-dimensional] animator would do is track the movement of bin Laden's face. That would give him what we call tracking data. Then he would make a fake 3-D jaw, which is made easier because he's got a woolly beard, [so] you don't have to match all the skin textures up."

He says the technique is similar to that used in the film "Babe," which features a talking pig: "Then you would animate the mouth and the beard and then you would apply the animation to the tracking data, so that wherever your animated 3-D jaw replacement is going, it follows the live action movement. You light the 3-D beard in the 3-D computer studio and give it the same lighting and direction and intensity of lighting that bin Laden would have had."

Then, Gosling says, animators would add some prepared sound bites and stitch the two elements together. The finished product would look like a single recording. Moreover, he says, the grainy, poor quality of the bin Laden footage would be an asset to any would-be faker.

But industry professionals, he adds, would be able to "see the joins."

"I would have been able to see if that had been done, with my experience, and I would say that having seen the footage several times in the news, that hasn't been done, in my opinion," Gosling says.

Motion picture special effects experts say it is certainly "possible" to fake it, but not in a way that would fool trained professionals and experts in video authenticity.

Ok, your turn.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

What in the world does that have to do with anything? You sure seem to have some weird obsession with Fox and Alien Autopsy, btw. I doubt anything I say would possibly convince you that I'm right. Just out of curiousity: did you even check out the other link I provided? It's much more relevant than the first. And in response to your previous post about NORAD and the like, yes, I'm well aware of how "homeland air defense" was scaled back in the 90's but your naivete shows itself once again.

It is very interesting that someone claiming to be "well aware" of the dramatic reduction in NORAD interceptors, crews, and bases during the 1990s would have ever offered NORAD policy dated before the downsizing as any sort of evidence of NORAD's capabilities in 2001. Would you also offer a textbook dated 2000 as "evidence" of the capabilities possessed by science in the 1940s? lol!

Again, I see that you refuse to provide just one person with any sort of sound credentials who can support your fantasy that the Bin Laden tape could be faked. Here, in good faith, because that's the kind of guy I am, let me start things off by offering testimony from one of the many special effects experts who have gone on record to say it cannot be faked:

Simon Gosling is a senior producer at the London-based Moving Picture Company, which creates post-production special effects for the film, music video, and commercial industries. He describes one possible method for how such a videotape could be faked: "First of all, what they would do is take footage of any old conversation between bin Laden and an associate. You would track the movement of bin Laden's head -- of course, he turns his face while he's conversing like anyone would. So the first thing the 3-D [three-dimensional] animator would do is track the movement of bin Laden's face. That would give him what we call tracking data. Then he would make a fake 3-D jaw, which is made easier because he's got a woolly beard, [so] you don't have to match all the skin textures up."

He says the technique is similar to that used in the film "Babe," which features a talking pig: "Then you would animate the mouth and the beard and then you would apply the animation to the tracking data, so that wherever your animated 3-D jaw replacement is going, it follows the live action movement. You light the 3-D beard in the 3-D computer studio and give it the same lighting and direction and intensity of lighting that bin Laden would have had."

Then, Gosling says, animators would add some prepared sound bites and stitch the two elements together. The finished product would look like a single recording. Moreover, he says, the grainy, poor quality of the bin Laden footage would be an asset to any would-be faker.

But industry professionals, he adds, would be able to "see the joins."

"I would have been able to see if that had been done, with my experience, and I would say that having seen the footage several times in the news, that hasn't been done, in my opinion," Gosling says.

Motion picture special effects experts say it is certainly "possible" to fake it, but not in a way that would fool trained professionals and authorities in video authenticity.

Ok, your turn.

Fine, forget Norad. I was trying to find that damn FAR that dealt with interceptions of presumedly hijacked aircraft but I couldn't find it. I'll have to ask my flight instructor tomorrow @ school.
There's nothing I can say to convince you that the tape was faked or that it's even possible to fake the tape so what's the point? If you want to live in ignorance that's your problem. If you don't think the United States Government is capable of doing such a thing then I pity you, for you have truly been deceived by the beast. I pray you will be shown the truth before Babylon burns and it is too late. Good luck.

 

[tcsenter]

Fine, forget Norad. I was trying to find that damn FAR that dealt with interceptions of presumedly hijacked aircraft but I couldn't find it. I'll have to ask my flight instructor tomorrow @ school.

Yeah, ok, you do that.

There's nothing I can say to convince you that the tape was faked or that it's even possible to fake the tape so what's the point?

Sure you could. You could be a chap and reciprocate the good faith example I offered above, by providing just one recognized and credible person to counter the expertise of Mr. Gosling. Is it really all that hard? Why are you being so stubborn? I'm only asking for one person for crying out loud.

You'll forgive me if I don't accept "trust me". After all, if I were to accept your utterly unsupported theory that the Bin Laden tape was faked, without a stitch of supportive evidence, in light of ample evidence the tape could not be faked convincingly, would I not be guilty of precisely the "blind ignorance" you're accusing me of? The same kind of "blind ignorance" you repeatedly confess of silently every time you offer "trust me" as your "proof"?

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Fine, forget Norad. I was trying to find that damn FAR that dealt with interceptions of presumedly hijacked aircraft but I couldn't find it. I'll have to ask my flight instructor tomorrow @ school.

Yeah, ok, you do that.

There's nothing I can say to convince you that the tape was faked or that it's even possible to fake the tape so what's the point?

Sure you could. You could be a chap and reciprocate the good faith example I offered above, by providing just one recognized and credible person to counter the expertise of Mr. Gosling. Is it really all that hard? Why are you being so stubborn? I'm only asking for one person for crying out loud.

You'll forgive me if I don't accept "trust me". After all, if I were to accept your utterly unsupported theory that the Bin Laden tape was faked, without a stitch of supportive evidence, in light of ample evidence the tape could not be faked convincingly, would I not be guilty of precisely the "blind ignorance" you're accusing me of? The same kind of "blind ignorance" you repeatedly confess of silently every time you offer "trust me" as your "proof"?

I'm a recognized and credible person. Don't trust me? I'm also a computer programmer and a long-time pc hardware analyst (on an architectural level) and can tell you for a fact that this is possible. If I had the time and the desire I could do it myself.

 

[tcsenter]

I'm a recognized and credible person. Don't trust me? I'm also a computer programmer and a long-time pc hardware analyst (on an architectural level) and can tell you for a fact that this is possible. If I had the time and the desire I could do it myself.

More "trust me"? I'm willing to acknowledge evidence of your credibility, but not thin air.

Please provide your resume and CV of video and CG special effects training, experience, and some samples of the projects or publications to which you've contributed. I'll give it a look, verify all claims, and get back with you.

Shouldn't be all that hard to provide your own credentials, should it? Or maybe you misplaced your entire work history? The dog ate it?

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I'm a recognized and credible person. Don't trust me? I'm also a computer programmer and a long-time pc hardware analyst (on an architectural level) and can tell you for a fact that this is possible. If I had the time and the desire I could do it myself.

More "trust me"? I'm willing to acknowledge evidence of your credibility, but not thin air.

Please provide your resume and CV of video and CG special effects training, experience, and some samples of the projects or publications to which you've contributed. I'll give it a look, verify all claims, and get back with you.

Shouldn't be all that hard to provide your own credentials, should it? Or maybe you misplaced your entire work history? The dog ate it?

I never said I had CG credentials, only that I am a programmer and have indepth knowledge of computer hardware on an architectural level. Please don't confuse the two. I won't be sending out any resumes over teh intarweb to random people, thank you very much.

 

[NeoV]

flyer, how many times do we have to say it? Wasn't the Payne S flight after 9/11? Isn't our response going to be a bit quicker after 9/11 when we lose contact with an aircraft? Don't you get that? Stop quoting that incident, you are making yourself look foolish...and if you are in aviation school are you really a full-fledged pilot?

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: NeoV
flyer, how many times do we have to say it? Wasn't the Payne S flight after 9/11? Isn't our response going to be a bit quicker after 9/11 when we lose contact with an aircraft? Don't you get that? Stop quoting that incident, you are making yourself look foolish...and if you are in aviation school are you really a full-fledged pilot?

Answer to your question: NO. Do some research next time, please. The only person looking foolish here is you. Here ya go. October 25, 1999.
Insert foot in mouth....

 

[tcsenter]

I never said I had CG credentials, only that I am a programmer and have indepth knowledge of computer hardware on an architectural level. Please don't confuse the two. I won't be sending out any resumes over teh intarweb to random people, thank you very much.

Interesting. I have a fair amount of technical computer knowledge and experience myself, and I've yet to stumble across any principle suggesting that possessing a bit of programming and hardware knowledge would cause one to become imbued with expertise in computer generated special effects, video, and photographic authenticity.

Admittedly, it is precisely because my "fair amount of technical computer knowledge and experience" does not give me authoritative knowledge in computer generated special effects, video, and photographic authenticity that I am forced to defer to the judgement of those who are recognized authorities in such matters, such as Simon Gosling and numerous other industry motion picture special effects experts who agree with him.

I'm willing to consider any new evidence from such a recognized authority, but it must exist before I can consider it. You either refuse to or are incapable of providing such evidence for me to consider.

 

[Cfour]

Anyone who voted yes is a moron.

 

[NeoV]

oh yea.....that would be 'remove foot from mouth'

ok, so I got my dates wrong.....

I still say that your arguement of = look at how fast they got to Payne Stewart's plane vs the events of 9/11 show little or no relevance, and your agenda is clearly anti-bush, so you aren't going to listen to reason either.....so you are saying they allowed the plane to hit the pentagon on purpose? Please...

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: NeoV
oh yea.....that would be 'remove foot from mouth'

ok, so I got my dates wrong.....

I still say that your arguement of = look at how fast they got to Payne Stewart's plane vs the events of 9/11 show little or no relevance, and your agenda is clearly anti-bush, so you aren't going to listen to reason either.....so you are saying they allowed the plane to hit the pentagon on purpose? Please...

Not relevant? How many more times do I have to explain this? There are procedures in place for intercepting planes that are not in contact w/ATC and/or appear to be out of control/hijacked what have you. The procedures used to intercept Payne Stewart's plane are the *exact* same procedures that were in place on 9/11. The procedures were not followed period end of story. The ARTCC in Boston knew that at least two planes had been hijacked long before either plane struck the towers, and yet nothing was done. Explain that to me.
You're damn right my agenda is anti-bush he's the freaking Antichrist for crying out loud! Let me ask you something: if you honestly believed that the Antichrist were among us today and were, in fact, the President of the United States wouldn't you have a strong dislike for the man? Assuming your answer is yes (as any rational person's would be) why do you respond to me in such a fashion? The best way to get to know a man is to walk a mile in his shoes. Perhaps now after trying mine on you can at least understand my point of view. You certainly don't have to agree with me but will you at least admit that given my opinion on the matter that I am not totally uninformed and I do, in fact, know something about that which I speak? You don't have to, just curious is all...

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I never said I had CG credentials, only that I am a programmer and have indepth knowledge of computer hardware on an architectural level. Please don't confuse the two. I won't be sending out any resumes over teh intarweb to random people, thank you very much.

Interesting. I have a fair amount of technical computer knowledge and experience myself, and I've yet to stumble across any principle suggesting that possessing a bit of programming and hardware knowledge would cause one to become imbued with expertise in computer generated special effects, video, and photographic authenticity.

Admittedly, it is precisely because my "fair amount of technical computer knowledge and experience" does not give me authoritative knowledge in computer generated special effects, video, and photographic authenticity that I am forced to defer to the judgement of those who are recognized authorities in such matters, such as Simon Gosling and numerous other industry motion picture special effects experts who agree with him.

I'm willing to consider any new evidence from such a recognized authority, but it must exist before I can consider it. You either refuse to or are incapable of providing such evidence for me to consider.

If you truly possessed a modicum of "computer knowledge" you should know that it's not altogether impossible to create a program which would allow one to create video and audio of at least camcorder quality, provided one has video and audio of the subject at hand (which there is plenty of, in this case). Why do you think it so difficult to do such a thing? We're not talking about "computer generated special effects" here, that's precisely the problem. We're talking about editing camcorder-quality (or lack thereof) video and audio to create a short video of the subject.
I'm sure there are quite a few people who frequent AT that would be capable of such a feat. If a lonely computer nerd can do this don't you think the Government could?

 

[NetGuySC]

Yes I believe it's possible that the attack was staged and I also believe the CIA killed kennedy.

If it was staged or allowed to happen, it would be the perfect way to unite the people of the USA to do what we would not have as quickly rolled over for before the attacks. Such as the Patriot Act, realigning the middle east, and other future events yet to be seen.

Am I conspiracy nut? no I do not think so. I just choose not to have blind faith in any goverment.

 

[tcsenter]

I still say that your arguement of = look at how fast they got to Payne Stewart's plane vs the events of 9/11 show little or no relevance, and your agenda is clearly anti-bush, so you aren't going to listen to reason either...

Particularly since Stewart's Learjet was not intercepted initially by fighters from a NORAD detachment. An F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron happened to be in the air at the time on a routine training flight and was requested by ATC to assist with visual identification of Stewart's Learjet, which the test pilot began at 10:00AM and concluded by 10:12AM.

Interceptors from an ANG base would not make their first visual contact with the Learjet until one full hour later, at 11:13AM. An example of "fast response"? God I hope not.

 

[tcsenter]

If you truly possessed a modicum of "computer knowledge" you should know that it's not altogether impossible to create a program which would allow one to create video and audio of at least camcorder quality, provided one has video and audio of the subject at hand (which there is plenty of, in this case). Why do you think it so difficult to do such a thing?

You keep flapping at the gums but nothing except hot air seems to come out.

Again, you keep asserting with absolutely z-e-r-o supportive evidence "it can be done, trust me" when the experts have weighed in and stated "no it can't".

You = nobody, big fat nothing

Simon Gosling = Senior Producer at the London-based Moving Picture Company, which creates post-production special effects for the film, music video, and commercial industries.

Golly gee, who am I going to believe? Its such a difficult choice!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I never said I had CG credentials, only that I am a programmer and have indepth knowledge of computer hardware on an architectural level. Please don't confuse the two. I won't be sending out any resumes over teh intarweb to random people, thank you very much.

Interesting. I have a fair amount of technical computer knowledge and experience myself, and I've yet to stumble across any principle suggesting that possessing a bit of programming and hardware knowledge would cause one to become imbued with expertise in computer generated special effects, video, and photographic authenticity.

Admittedly, it is precisely because my "fair amount of technical computer knowledge and experience" does not give me authoritative knowledge in computer generated special effects, video, and photographic authenticity that I am forced to defer to the judgement of those who are recognized authorities in such matters, such as Simon Gosling and numerous other industry motion picture special effects experts who agree with him.

I'm willing to consider any new evidence from such a recognized authority, but it must exist before I can consider it. You either refuse to or are incapable of providing such evidence for me to consider.

If you truly possessed a modicum of "computer knowledge" you should know that it's not altogether impossible to create a program which would allow one to create video and audio of at least camcorder quality, provided one has video and audio of the subject at hand (which there is plenty of, in this case). Why do you think it so difficult to do such a thing? We're not talking about "computer generated special effects" here, that's precisely the problem. We're talking about editing camcorder-quality (or lack thereof) video and audio to create a short video of the subject.
I'm sure there are quite a few people who frequent AT that would be capable of such a feat. If a lonely computer nerd can do this don't you think the Government could?

Mind posting a link to something that said we had vociferous amounts of Bin Laden video and audio on hand? Also, do you mind posting a link that shows that the type of editing you are talking about is not detectable? What you propose is something so perfect that it would have to be better technology than any government or individual possesses. In the case of military equipment that might be possible because of the extreme cost, but not so with video editing. And yes you are a troll. I've yet to see a single post by you that didn't have some type of troll attempt to it.

 

[Analog]

outrageous.

 

[Siddhartha]

I am not a big GWB fan but I can not think he would be cold blooded enough to do this. I doubt Nixon or J Edgar Hoover would do that.

 

[tcsenter]

Mind posting a link to something that said we had vociferous amounts of Bin Laden video and audio on hand? Also, do you mind posting a link that shows that the type of editing you are talking about is not detectable?

I'm betting he has an equally detailed explanation as to how the world's top physicists can get fusion power to work:

"You stick the doo-dad into the whachimacallit, hook a Diehard truck battery up to the discombobulator, and give the doo-majigger a few cranks. Presto - clean energy. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge in physics would know that."

 

[AnyMal]

Heh, what do you expect from someone who lists a quote from The Onion as if it were a legitimate news source.