What's in Naudet 1?

[losability]

People, this video (as all) really is fake. Confirm for yourself. Stop the video at 0:17 or later. First imagine where you think the base of the tower should be. Then measure very precisely the width of the tower. For the length: multiply this by 6,6. (or google dimensions for yourself) Now you know where the base accorrding to the "video" is. Or measure antenna, should be 1,73 times the width: to short too.

Btw they fixed these problems in later versions.

peace

[offyam]

CollinAlexander, i don't know who the hell you are in relation to 9/11 and how that whole mess came about but the theory is that there we NO PLANES. You can scale ANY fucking object to ANY size, stretch and morph it to look like a plane and paste it on that god damn footage, but that does not DISPROVE the "NO PLANE" theory. You see, the "NO PLANE" theory states that ALL footage of allegedly hijacked planes on 9/11/2001 are CGI, faked, doctored, not real, illusionary, not what they seem, etc.

[DebunkerASSistant]

@offyam

From my point of view, Collin IS proving it is possible, he just did....with his example on this video clip.

What I don't understand is why Collin seems to try to disproof the No Plane theory here, when in his site, he does the opposite proving that it is extremely possible to doctor a video and include anything from fire to explosions(his sample video of the tower's explosion).

Those who know what I am saying here will agree there is something wrong with this "picture" of Collin.

[offyam]

@DebunkerASSistant haha, yes! Exactly. That's the point i was trying to imply in my tirade

[logicreality1]

collin - I'm a little confused on your stance as you seem to be debunking simonshack - Are you saying 911 was an inside job or real terrorism?

[marcpinke]

Incidentally, a Boeing 757/767 cannot fly 565 MPH @ sea level ;)

[ACEBAKER911]

Ace is the Place for 911 Truth !

[911hasNOplanes]

Make it a 3 or 4 hour event with breaks in between, a physical location where all the prominent leading NO PLANERS can prepare and bring their presentation in front of a Live audience

and then point by Point debate each other, and Film the debate and put it on DVD.

it would be incredibly thought provoking and interesting. Instead of fragmented small pieces of debates here and there scattered all over the Net

Just make it 1 huge showdown , Winner take all ! MAKES SENSE TO ME

[911hasNOplanes]

There needs to be an Event where all the NO PLANE Leaders and Pioneers like Simon and Collin, a debate presentation format, with a live audience

and have them just air it out and Video tape it and distribute it to get the info out there and let everyone decide for themselves.

1 main event to just air it all out ! i think it would generate HUGE interest and be incredibly interesting.

Each guy gets a chance to speak and give a presentation and debate each other.

GREAT IDEA HUH

[naudetsleuth]

Oh now the burden is on me to prove you right? I can't just let you with your video skills put that 767 model into one of the missilegate frames? You began by asserting the thing in the Naudet frames is 767-shaped but you repeatedly fail to show it in the enlarged Naudet frames.

[jblaz1024]

im totally confused on this video !  ?

[youzurk]

yes, very close

[naudetsleuth]

He's fooling you, by using too small a version. The thing was only 7/10ths of a mile from the camera. There's far more resolution in the missilegateDOTcom frames. NONE match the model 767 shape. ESPECIALLY not

tinyurl com/flashframe

When caught at this, he changed his tune. First he asserted THAT the Naudet object IS 767-shaped. Now he's trying to explain WHY it is NOT. He has ABANDONED his POINT. The whole thread should be deleted; it shows nothing but how he wasted honest people's time.

[youzurk]

I wonder to see an analisys of the Wolfgang Staehle's picture

of the first "plane",

can anyone help me?

[naudetsleuth]

I know of no such analysis. That footage is too cheesy to get much interest. Most of its frames are missing. It's like a fast 5-frame slideshow, not a video.

While we're at it, notice no plane in the Hlava 1st Hit footage, which BY THE WAY was shot in the presence of FDNY, just like the famous J.Naudet video was.

webfairy org/pavel

[youzurk]

I just made this one

watch?v=XCIxlE0SKcA

[CollinAlexander]

The airplane videos are video composites. The poor resolution and focus in Naudet 1 really prevent measurements accurate enough to determine if they got the size right. It looks a little too small me, which is a problem with trying to composite an airplane image into a shot like that.

[naudetsleuth]

Your explanation of compositing for an allegedly plane-shaped Naudet object is premature. I see no plane shape. You keep asserting it, but you ignore the biggest cleanest known versions of it, at missilegate com. Put your model into those frames (at proper distance, too) if you really believe the Naudet object has an X, T or + shape like your model has, instead of a blobby half-sideways U as I say it looks. Except in this frame

tinyurl com/flashframe

where it's fin-missile-shaped.

[CollinAlexander]

I took the video from the Naudet Bros Documentary DVD. Webfairy's "missilegate" site has images that were processed using "find edges".

[naudetsleuth]

The missilegate frames are also from dvd, they're just not scrunched down small enough for the purposes of your tomfoolery. Find Edges is only one of FOUR versions at m'gate INCLUDING Original. For instance the Flash Frame

missilegate com/051.htm

wherein see FINNED-MISSILE SHAPE AND WIDTH ABOUT 0.2 TOWER. Contrast to 767 shape and wingspan about 0.7 Tower.

Do you expect us to think your failure to notice that missilegate includes the unretouched frames was an innocent accident?

[CollinAlexander]

I didn't see any raw images, sorry. There's nothing wrong with using filters to try and analyze things anyway.

As I said below to WF, "disappearing wings" is due to video compression making the wings become the identical color as the tower (or the sky).

Video various airplanes of your own, and see what happens. This does not mean the airplane images are real. But it is the image of an airplane, nothing else.

[RawVegan0]

collin

I believe as you do that 911 was an inside Job. But being that the Naudet video was Not a Media video, but rather a Live amateur Documentary, how specifically would they be able to 'fake' that image of the Plane in the video ?

[MrTrippyDays]

@CollinAlexander

your wrong this plane is a pod 3 balls of light projecting a flapping plane

the orbs sit in the sky they project the hologram get a clearer copy and you can see the orb jumping up and moving away very fast.

[CollinAlexander]

In case anyone is unfamiliar with my work, no planes crashed anywhere on 9/11. Supporters of the official story, such as Eric Salter, have criticized the no-plane crash theory, based in part on CORRECTLY pointing out that Webfiary is wrong about the Naudet 1 image. The Naudet 1 image looks just like what we would expect for a 767 that is out of focus.

[TheWebfairy]

"out of focus" planes would feature out of focus wings, not no wings.

[CollinAlexander]

We've been through this WF. Video compression, such as MPEG compression used on DVDs, will make adjacent pixels that are NEARLY the same color, become EXACTLY the same color. The "missing wings" on various videos is a non-issue.

[CollinAlexander]

I agree my method does nothing to establish whether or not the airplane image is the correct size. What my study here does establish is that the pattern of pixels is perfectly consistent with the shape and lighting of a 767.

Many researchers, e.g. Webfiary, contend that the object "looks more like a flying pig". It doesn't. It looks like a 767. Try the same experiment with the image of a pig, or a missile, or whatever, and see if you can obtain a similar result.

[CollinAlexander]

I did not employ circular reasoning. The purpose is to compare the Naudet object to a known image of a 767 under similar conditions. They look the same.

I'll post high res still images when I get a chance.

I've already said the Naudet plane image may be a little too small, but it's impossible to prove. Video compositing is proven via the 2nd hit videos.

[naudetsleuth]

3rd time: if purpose is comparing Naudet object to known 767 image in similar conditions, then size the 767 model to match Naudet object's DISTANCE (0.7 mile from camera). Making the model the same SIZE as the Naudet object only makes them the same distance IF the Naudet object WAS 767-sized TO BEGIN WITH. AND IT WASN'T, by the law of Perspective, as I argued already but you didn't answer. You're ignoring the substance of my points, and now bringing up the 2ndHit to change your own topic.

[naudetsleuth]

Do you really think

missilegate com/051.htm

shows an object 3/4-Tower wide, or even plane-shaped?

Your scaling to match object's size is what I suspected. You should have scaled it to same DISTANCE. You argued in a circle, PRESUMING the object was 767-sized.

A 767-sized thing would have appeared bigger than the eventual plane-shaped hole, in all frames, by the law of perspective. (The mystery object was in all frames closer to the camera than the eventual hole was.)

[CollinAlexander]

The airplane image in Naudet might very well be too small, this would be a potential problem in compositing the thing in there. I think the airplane image in Fairbanks is a little too big.

Probably the most accurate way to scale the plane into the shot would be to use the width of the tower as a ruler - 208 feet.

Then rotate the airplane to be sideways, and get the known length of a 767 to be correct in comparison, then rotate it back to the angle it appears.

[CollinAlexander]

Enlarging the original will not make the image any better. I did enlarge the original, notice the zoom in at the end of the freeze frame. You could take what I did and enlarge it all you want. Go to full screen mode, for starters. And use the higher-quality YouTube version.

I simply scaled the model to match the size of the object in the video, and added some de-focus.

[naudetsleuth]

Why not just enlarge the original? Oh right b/c it's shaped like a blobby half-sideways U, not like a plane is basically like + or T or X.

This small-screen youtube stuff doesn't compare to the detail at missilegateDOTcom.

Especially see

tinyurl com/flashframe

the most un-planelike of all its un-planelike frames.

I suspect you shrank your model too much. Care to show your work in calculating the right shrinkage for simulating 7/10ths of a mile away like the mystery object was?