Loose Change flash is fake

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Loose Change flash is fake
Topic Started: May 20 2009, 04:08 PM (903 Views)
BoneZ	May 20 2009, 04:08 PM Post #1
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	That's the title of a thread by one of ATS's resident no-plane disinfo artists: Quote: In the Naudet shot we don't have a flash but in the Loose Change we have a flash. So why did Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery put a flash in their video and what was the purpose? Was it to mislead people? http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/loosechange%20flash%20fraud.gif http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread464827/pg1 That no-plane disinfo artist piece of sh!t just flat out accused Dylan and Jason of purposely altering video to mislead people. One of ATS's prominent members just recently payed $175 for an HD version of the Naudet video to debunk some no-plane disinfo since the no-plane disinfo artists won't get their own high-quality videos to prove their worthless claims. I've contacted him to see if he could get an HD .gif out of that video to see if the flash is there or not. I guess there has been a "flash" controversy for a little while now that I didn't even know about: http://www.prisonplanet.com/091603dvd.html If the flash was deleted out of the Naudet video, then that shows even more complicity. I don't understand why they would delete the flash out of the north tower video when there are so many south tower videos showing the flash as well. Edited by BoneZ, May 20 2009, 04:08 PM.
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


JFK	May 20 2009, 05:44 PM Post #2
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	If I remember correctly the Naudet bros. released 2 versions of their film. You want the first version.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


BoneZ	May 20 2009, 05:59 PM Post #3
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	Ok, but why would they edit the flash? That doesn't make much sense.
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


Lin Kuei	May 20 2009, 06:08 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,290 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	BoneZ May 20 2009, 05:59 PM Ok, but why would they edit the flash? That doesn't make much sense. Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Kind of makes me wonder whether it was just by coincidence the Naudet's happened to be filming in NYC at that time and place. As for the npt dude on ATS... what a laugh... let him make himself look silly...
Posts: 1,290 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


BoneZ	May 20 2009, 06:52 PM Post #5
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	Lin Kuei May 20 2009, 06:08 PM Kind of makes me wonder whether it was just by coincidence the Naudet's happened to be filming in NYC at that time and place. It makes one wonder more than ever if in fact they did edit out the flash.
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


asaf-a	May 21 2009, 08:34 AM Post #6
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09	I'd like to suggest an idea. Maybe this flash was just so quick that appeared over one frame, and over the course of changing the video from 30fps to 25fps or something it disappeared? Or maybe Loose change wanted to bold it in the first cut because they were discussing these flashes (which later turned out to be kinetic energy turning to heat energy) and the option of them being a missiles. But my most likely theory is that this flash always appears and that GIF just cut out that frame. Notice how the frames aren't very synced.
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09


JFK	May 21 2009, 09:02 AM Post #7
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	asaf-a May 21 2009, 08:34 AM I'd like to suggest an idea. Maybe this flash was just so quick that appeared over one frame, and over the course of changing the video from 30fps to 25fps or something it disappeared? Or maybe Loose change wanted to bold it in the first cut because they were discussing these flashes (which later turned out to be kinetic energy turning to heat energy) and the option of them being a missiles. But my most likely theory is that this flash always appears and that GIF just cut out that frame. Notice how the frames aren't very synced. Obviously you need to re watch the first cut.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	May 21 2009, 10:04 AM Post #8
Posts: 739 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	asaf-a "I'd like to suggest an idea. Maybe this flash was just so quick that appeared over one frame, and over the course of changing the video from 30fps to 25fps or something it disappeared?" Well the BBC News broadcast of their copy of the Naudet Bros. footage clearly showed the flash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADIxUlFj4mY Given that Loose Change wasn't even in the planning stage at that time, this clearly establishes the flash was real, or added by BBC News. MM
Posts: 739 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


asaf-a	May 21 2009, 11:27 AM Post #9
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09	So when was it vanished?
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09


JFK	May 21 2009, 11:30 AM Post #10
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	asaf-a May 21 2009, 11:27 AM So when was it vanished? It vanished in the second video which the Naudet brothers marketed.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


asaf-a	May 21 2009, 11:43 AM Post #11
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09	JFK May 21 2009, 11:30 AM asaf-a May 21 2009, 11:27 AM So when was it vanished? It vanished in the second video which the Naudet brothers marketed. So whoever edited the Naudet film probebly knows about it more then us. I don't see what's the big deal about this flash anyway.
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09


Miragememories	May 21 2009, 11:54 AM Post #12
Posts: 739 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	asaf-a "So whoever edited the Naudet film probebly knows about it more then us. I don't see what's the big deal about this flash anyway. " No one has attempted to make a particularly big deal out of the flash. What could be a big deal, is that someone went to the trouble of removing it for no obvious reason. No obvious reason that we are privy to that is. Maybe you don't think such an action is highly suspicious, but I certainly do. MM
Posts: 739 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


JFK	May 21 2009, 12:17 PM Post #13
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	asaf-a May 21 2009, 11:43 AM JFK May 21 2009, 11:30 AM asaf-a May 21 2009, 11:27 AM So when was it vanished? It vanished in the second video which the Naudet brothers marketed. So whoever edited the Naudet film probebly knows about it more then us. I don't see what's the big deal about this flash anyway. As was pointed out in the first loose change, the flash occurs prior to the plane making contact with the building in the first impact as is evidenced by the shadow of the plane, and the flash being in the "wrong place" in the second impact.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


asaf-a	May 21 2009, 12:31 PM Post #14
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09	You can't tell from this angle What does it suggest? That a bomb went off one milisecond before the plane crashed in the precise point of impact, or that America secretly developed an invisible rocket launching pad on a 767 to use to bring the twin towers because controled demolition and plane crash was just wasn't enough? And yes, that is a serious question, what does this flash mean? You keep bringing up stuff that i can't explain, but neither can you, and it dosen't hint anywhere. No offence to anyone, but that flash vanishing is really not big deal. Edited by asaf-a, May 21 2009, 12:34 PM.
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09


Lin Kuei	May 21 2009, 12:39 PM Post #15
Posts: 1,290 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	asaf-a May 21 2009, 12:31 PM You keep bringing up stuff that i can't explain, but neither can you, and it dosen't hint anywhere. You keep trying to play everything down. It certainly does 'hint' alot - that something drastically different happened to what we were told.
Posts: 1,290 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


JFK	May 21 2009, 01:01 PM Post #16
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	asaf-a May 21 2009, 12:31 PM You can't tell from this angle What does it suggest? That a bomb went off one milisecond before the plane crashed in the precise point of impact, or that America secretly developed an invisible rocket launching pad on a 767 to use to bring the twin towers because controled demolition and plane crash was just wasn't enough? And yes, that is a serious question, what does this flash mean? You keep bringing up stuff that i can't explain, but neither can you, and it dosen't hint anywhere. No offence to anyone, but that flash vanishing is really not big deal. If you should happen to gather the ambition to do a frame by frame analyisis, it is obvious.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


asaf-a	May 21 2009, 03:06 PM Post #17
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09	Lin Kuei May 21 2009, 12:39 PM asaf-a May 21 2009, 12:31 PM You keep bringing up stuff that i can't explain, but neither can you, and it dosen't hint anywhere. You keep trying to play everything down. It certainly does 'hint' alot - that something drastically different happened to what we were told. I'm not playing everything down, but a small flash that is removed from one frame in a private documentary movie by two frenchman is not "drastically different" from what you were told, it's a small unimportent flash, which dosen't have any meaning whatsoever to hint to a plot. Quote: If you should happen to gather the ambition to do a frame by frame analyisis, it is obvious. Well i'm not that ambitious but to me it seems that it is about the moment of impact. There was this shot at first loose change that it seems like the flash appears like five feet before the plane, but it has the same dark color as the building so it's hard to tell.
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #1,103 Joined: 03/27/09


JFK	May 21 2009, 03:25 PM Post #18
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	asaf-a May 21 2009, 03:06 PM Lin Kuei May 21 2009, 12:39 PM asaf-a May 21 2009, 12:31 PM You keep bringing up stuff that i can't explain, but neither can you, and it dosen't hint anywhere. You keep trying to play everything down. It certainly does 'hint' alot - that something drastically different happened to what we were told. I'm not playing everything down, but a small flash that is removed from one frame in a private documentary movie by two frenchman is not "drastically different" from what you were told, it's a small unimportent flash, which dosen't have any meaning whatsoever to hint to a plot. Quote: If you should happen to gather the ambition to do a frame by frame analyisis, it is obvious. Well i'm not that ambitious but to me it seems that it is about the moment of impact. There was this shot at first loose change that it seems like the flash appears like five feet before the plane, but it has the same dark color as the building so it's hard to tell. More like 25 feet if you take into account the immense size of those buildings.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


BoneZ	May 21 2009, 03:48 PM Post #19
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	asaf-a May 21 2009, 12:31 PM What does it suggest? Among other things, some sort of possible explosive was detonated around the point of impact. And if someone did edit out the flash in the 2ndEd. of the Naudet video, then that shows blatant complicity.
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


BoneZ	May 21 2009, 04:50 PM Post #20
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	Thanks MM for the BBC video. I just spanked the NPT disinfo artist with the facts and told him to apologize to the Loose Change guys for his blatant disinfo.
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


22205	May 22 2009, 03:17 AM Post #21
Arlingtonian Posts: 443 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: I don't see what's the big deal about this flash anyway. http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=6518&view=findpost&p=15411908 ps- i am not a "no planer".



French St	May 22 2009, 03:36 AM Post #22
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08	Eric Salter: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html Quote: "There have been some accusations made that the flashes have been added to the footage via digital manipulation. I do not agree with these accusations of forgery. The flashes show up in various versions of the footage from different sources, including mainstream commercial releases. The only versions of the footage that I have seen which do not have the flashes are conversions to digital files, in which the flashes can disappear due to de-interlacing (a normal part of the conversion process) in the case of footage where they only persist for one field (half of a frame). Keep in mind also that certain types of slow-motion and image enlargement processing can make it appear that the flashes have been enlarged or lengthened. The site oilempire.us, making an implied accusation of forgery, claims that there is no flash in the video "The Great Deception" released by Barrie Zwicker back in 2002, but I looked at the video and it was indeed there." "Beyond this, many more speculations could be offered. Perhaps some explosive weapon was triggered from inside the cockpit, or was hidden in the nose cone. Perhaps, although this might be a stretch, the flash could be a result of a massive static discharge as the aircraft hits the conductive surface of the tower (metal-skinned airplanes of all types can build up very large electrical charges during flight; normally, these are dissipated gradually through special external attachments known as static wicks, but under the right circumstances, a sudden uncontrolled discharge can be as powerful as a small lightning bolt, and occurences of this kind are on record). Alternately, some people argue that the flash was just a shower of sparks as the plane collided, metal on metal, with the building. Neither of these hypotheses would seem to account for the especially large and bright North Tower flash, however. Eric Bart speculates that the North Tower flash might indicate the use of 'shaped charge' explosives: http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv2.html A simpler speculation might be that the impact twisted one of the WTC outer wall panels out of place in such way that it momentarily reflected a glint of sunlight off of the glass and/or aluminum facing. Admittedly, this would be a bit of a fluke, but can it be ruled out? A couple of readers have pointed out that the radar in the nose of the plane operates with a large amount of electrical power, and that the discharge of that electricity on impacts could have caused the flash. Others feel that these flashes are a chemical reaction, a combustion of metal pulverized by the impact. Another possibility is that the force of impact was sufficient to cause some aluminum in the fuselage to combust, which would cause a bright flash. However, we don't see any other flashes as the rest of the aluminum aircraft hits the wall. Ultimately, there are only speculations at this point concerning the flashes, and I definitely do not claim to have the answer. Undoubtedly, any attempt to explain things further must be backed up with expert testimony from people with the right expertise in explosives, engineering, etc. Regardless, in the case of both flashes, the visual record is so limited that I seriously doubt that any definitive explanation will ever be found, so one must weigh the risks and benefits of delving into a potentially irresolvable are of speculation which may not be guaranteed to help break the overall case of 9/11. Still, the flashes could be a reason to be open minded about the potential that there was more going on with these two planes and the impacts than the official story admits." For flight 175, there are at least two other questions: the pod and the size of the aircraft. To my knowledge, there are no obvious answers to these questions. Pod: http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/debunking-the-debunkers-appendage-on-flight-175/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op7iCrJ5ns8&hl=fr No Pod: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_c1tPMiG0&hl=fr http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5AOOmM_bnA&hl=fr http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/270405newfootage.htm Quote of the last link: "New found footage of Flight 175's impact on the south tower of the World Trade Center appears to contradict claims of a pod being on the underbelly of the plane. The 'flash' that many also assert is visible in several different frames of other footage is missing." The size of the aircraft: http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08


D.Duck	May 22 2009, 08:41 AM Post #23
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #1,178 Joined: 05/22/09	JFK May 21 2009, 11:30 AM asaf-a May 21 2009, 11:27 AM So when was it vanished? It vanished in the second video which the Naudet brothers marketed. JFK, Naudet first hit has no flash in it when it was aired 9/12 - 2001 - 0:05 From the archices and aired CNN Sept. 12, 2001 0:05 am - 0:47 am (September 12, 2001) http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109120005-0047 So why has Loochange a flash in it? Best D.Duck
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #1,178 Joined: 05/22/09


BoneZ	May 22 2009, 09:10 AM Post #24
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	D.Duck May 22 2009, 08:41 AM Naudet first hit has no flash in it when it was aired 9/12 - 2001 - 0:05 From the archices and aired CNN Sept. 12, 2001 0:05 am - 0:47 am (September 12, 2001) http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109120005-0047 So why has Loochange a flash in it? Now you wanna start asking questions after you and your cult leader simonshack/socialservice has accused the makers of "Loose Change" of manipulating video.
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


Miragememories	May 22 2009, 09:24 AM Post #25
Posts: 739 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	So why does the BBC broadcast also have the flash? MM
Posts: 739 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2