More Evidence from the No-Planers
Nico Haupt (aka ewing2001) wanted you all to see this (Volume down, loud and annoying music):
The plane rotates, and turns black. I don't know what that's supposed to tell us--the rotation of the plane was planned so that multiple floors of the building would take damage. The turning black is probably just a change in the lighting angle of the plane as it moved closer. Or, you know, the cloaking thing turning on.
posted by Pat @ 7:23 PM
58 comments
58 Comments:
Man, these people are idiotic. Plane turning black == conspiracy. It's not like the plane can go into the shadow of a building.
The plane turns black, and rotates to the left. Black, and to the left. Black, and to the left. Black, and to the left.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the aircraft came in from the west side of the buildings, right? And the sun rises in the east. And all of this occuerd very early in the morning meaning the towers would have had very LONG shadows....
But then again, I'm sure that on the morning of September 11th 2001, George W Bush personaly made the sun rise in the west just so his CGI airplanes could turn black for no reason.
I love this stuff. Keep it up CT boys and Girls, and you make it a lot less work for us debunkers...lol
TAM
The Ctr's always use crappy vids but never explain the live feed that many people saw. How did they fake the live feed?
Or the live people. It's like they think everyone in downtown New York was inside watching TV or something.
Dear no-planers: It was a bunch of pissed-off Muslims. What, are you retarted?
Or, you know, the cloaking thing turning on.
Goddamnit! I knew it was thr Romulans all along!
I always said that the planes looked far more like Romulan Warbirds than 767's.
Why won't anyone listen to me?
Keep it up CT boys and Girls
Umm... are there any CT girls?
No, girls can't "Get a clue"
I can't believe you all are making fun of no-planers! Why waste the time?
Thats alright 9/11 CU, we all know that the amount of theories that have been debunked are so overwhelming, that most of you guys now have to stretch into the realm of the pakistani connection, and other such quasi LIHOP issues...its ok...I am sure some wingnut will come up with some other seriously delusional take on 9/11 for all of you to rally around.
Oh by the way, there is a good portion of your CTist supporters who buy into the "strawman" argument you are talking about, so blame them for popularizing it.
TAM
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods are no-planers, are they not, as are many of your movement.
Who is chosen to be mocked, and when is the prerogative of the blog owner, not yours, swing.
TAM
No, mac, I just can't imagine why you guys waste your time on stupidity. I don't subscribe to any movement, but I do enjoy arguing with you guys as of late. I don't need to support other people, I do just fine on my own.
I'm a late comer to the forum, of course, so I've missed out on the good arguements for and against conspiracy. So far, any challenge I present results in personal attacks and insults instead of retorts based upon fact and evidence. Alex is real good at that particular tactic.
Maybe that is why the number of challengers you guys face has dwindled significantly.
The no plane conspiracy is poison in the well. Lump that theory in with legit questions and the legit questions get flushed with the junk. Yeah I know your going to say it all should be flushed because the government can't lie, blah blah blah.
But history proves otherwise. Facts prove otherwise. The Freedom of Information Act, declassified documents, unearthed information, etc. all support that individuals within the goverment have lied and continue to lie for ulterior motives. Besides if it weren't for folks like myself, this blog would be rather boring as you all type stuff to support each other without intellectual challenges.
What I don't get is that most, if not all of you agree, (maybe you dont') that the Bush Administration has lied about numerous issues during its time in office, but when it comes to the 9/11 issue, it is a shut and sealed case. Nothing to agree with really, it is just a simple fact. Why is 9/11 any different than Iraq, Katrina, etc.?
Is it because it resulted in thousands of deaths and endless war and that individuals within the federal goverment sit upon a pedestal immune to criticism?
Examine if you will the Vietnam conflict. It is now proven without a doubt, the United States under the Johnson Administration began that conflict, not the other way around. If you study history, especially after Freedom of Information Act requests and declassified documents, you continue to see this type of pattern. At the time, however, it was the holy word that the North Vietnamese began that conflict because the Administration said it was so. So I ask you, why not question the events of 9/11, especially in the current light of the current political climate in the United States?
Mac, can you do me a favor,-please list all of the debunked theories with supporting evidence? Oh and don't provide government theories to discredit conspiracy theories because both are theories!
The fact remains that until independent scientifically proven results that can be duplicated are produced, both sides cling to theory, both sides support opposing theory, and apparently both sides enjoy doing so. You can not factually support the official version because none of us have all of the photographic, eyewitness, and material evidence. That my friend is fact!
With that in mind, I hope you all enjoy a wonderful weekend and I look foward to reading your response and Alex's banter.
Swing Dangler-
Why would your opinion of this blog being "rather boring" mean anything at all?
And as for the attacks and insults, it's because no matter how much evidence is presented, Truthers regurgitate the same arguments over and over again. It gets tiring very quickly, and they refuse to listen, so why not knock them? They're not listening anyway.
Nobody on this blog has EVER said "the government can't lie"(your words, right before blah, blah, blah). There are so many other reasons why these theories don't hold water. I think I can safely say that nobody on this blog will say Bush is honest.
Being an non-political person as I am, when I look at this situation, I feel like the truthers come off as fanatics. If their evidence and theory is so solid, why can't they be cool, calm and collective? Because they are barely hanging onto their own theory, and the internal stuggle they have with comes to the surface.
Why do you think the 9/11 Truth Movement is infilrated?
South Park brought it to the point:
To let "9/11 truthlings" look indeed like wackos and keep flagwavers like ScrewLoose against them busy..
You wanna analyse the 9/11 live feed?
Fact is, there were only 2 LIVE broadcasts. ABC7 and FOX11.
And if you see the tower positions and analyse the geographical direction of the alleged aircraft you will realize it must have been fake. Nothing to do with blurry feeds. Just simple logics.
Also no parallax or depth of field nonsense.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4x4Yceg-ZxQ
Does that mean, Bin Laden faked the feed? How? And for which reason?
Maybe you guys are smarter to figure that out because the 9/11 truthlings like censorship.
In my opinion, flagwavers and 9/11 truthlings however are the same victims of media deception.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4x4Yceg-ZxQ
The reason, why the evidence of controlled demolition was first delayed for 4 years by saboteurs within this '9/11 truth movement' and then overpromoted by some shills, is to keep the myth alive of real planes and let the movement look like kooks.
Wasn't it someone from you, who figured that DRG supports NWO?
Well, think again, what happened with Steven E. Jones after he did his lousy "thermite gig":
http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm
Steven Jones, David Kubiak- The Los Alamos Connections
A win-win situation
...yes, and to keep ScrewLoose distracted : )
Are you guys ready for the endgame between US, China and Russia?
Because that is what will come next..
Shouldn't be a problem for you, we all love our country, don't we ? :)
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html
(Banned from 911blogger.com for speaking out against US GOV run- 911truth.org )
You wanna analyse the 9/11 live feed?
Fact is, there were only 2 LIVE broadcasts. ABC7 and FOX11.
And if you see the tower positions and analyse the geographical direction of the alleged aircraft you will realize it must have been fake.
I didn't see the live feed, chief. I saw the plane. What are you, some kind of retard?
both sides cling to theory, both sides support opposing theory, and apparently both sides enjoy doing so.
I think you're a little confused by the concept of theories.
A theory is not a pejorative(as in, "that's just a theory").
Not all theories are created equal. That is, not all theories are equally supported by the facts. Some theories have no factual basis whatsoever - most conspiracy theories are a great example.
You can look up for yourself what makes a good theory. I recommend starting with the theory of evolution, if only because you can see some of the fallacies you commit up close in creationists' arguments.
I'm not sure what you mean by opposing theories because I've never seen you actually admit to whichever theory you believe. Our theory is that 19 hijackers trained to become pilots with the intention of flying planes into buildings. Your theory is, apparently, "no they didn't."
That's not a very good theory because it's nearly impossible to disprove - short of having personally been on the airplanes. Tell us who you think was responsible, then present evidence to support your theory.
Like this:
Theory: it was pissed-off Muslims.
Evidence:
-admission of guilt from OBL.
-record of hijackers attending flight school.
-testimony of flight instructors that hijackers had the skill to accomplish the attack.
-Eyewitness accounts of planes hitting all 3 targets.
-Phone calls to family members of the 4th plane confirming the details of the hijacking.
-physical evidence of the planes, and passengers, at all 4 crash sites.
-video of the perpetrators at various stages of planning the attacks.
-long history of terrorist acts by perpetrators before 9/11.
I'm sure I left out a mountain of evidence. I think that's a good project you might try if you're really interested in the truth:
-Make a list of all the evidence supporting the "official story".
-Make a list of all the evidence supporting alternate theories you support.
Come back here and pretend there's more evidence to support your theory. Whatever that may be...
-----------------------------------
since I've wandered so far off topic. Re: no-planers-
I can't make fun of these people in good conscience. I think they have to be literally mentally ill.
keep flagwavers like ScrewLoose
I love how "flag waving" is used as an insult.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain (emphasis mine)
Every news channel had a feed of the second plane. I worked at an AV company and we had a number of sets on different channels, were they all broadcasting the same 2 feeds? If there were only 2 live feeds how were they faked? The no planers are the most whaked of all the whaks IMHO
SWING:
Asking me to refute the CTs without the use of any evidence connected to the Govt is pretty unfair, since all of the investigations done wrt 9/11 were connected, in some way to the govt. That is just childish. If you consider all the evidence from NIST/FEMA/911 Commission to be all fabricated, than there is no point in arguing with you, simply live in your super-paranoid world...peace.
Noone here says that the "official" story of 9/11 is 100% correct, but we believe the majority of it is. Most here likely believe that the BUSH/PNAC group were to dumb to see the attack coming, or too arrogant.
I dunno what to say when you ask me to refute claims counter to an investigation, without using any of the investigation evidence...that is just a bizaare request.
TAM
Someone should tell the imbecilic fuckwads who made this "video" that 1) the plane "turned black" because it went behind a building (the same thing happens when the sun goes behind the clouds), 2) the pilots twisted the plane because it was going to miss most of the building, and they turned it to hit it as hard as they could.
The fact that this WAS seen live on tv (everyone with a brain saw it) shows how utterly pathetic these nutjobs truly are.
Flagwaving is not an insult.
It's about flagwaving all the time and stop breathing and thinking.
I waved the flag during the anniversary to show my respect to the victims, who deserve to know where their loved ones really get killed.
Stevew,
some TV channels had their own camera feeds, but didn't pick up their feed at time of second attack, but showed instead ABC7.
FOX NEWS and CNN showed an unidentified helicopter feed from ABC7 (WESCAM), so did others or showed nothing but an explosion (CBS, FOX5 NYC).
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
Some of these stations later showed footage, which wasn't broadcasted live at time of attack. Most of this not-broadcasted footage didn't include any aircraft silhouette, which actually hit or entered the south tower, but also vanished behind the north tower, then followed by the authentic fireball explosion.
Since the names of the majority of these camera operator are unknown there was enough opportunity and time to insert aircraft CGI as well.
The non-live footage was obviously obtained from a military terror drill anyway.
Manny,
all eye-witness reports contradict each other and it's not clear if they saw actually some object hitting or passing the South Tower.
Almost 20 witness reports, with clear vantage point or in front of ST, didn't hear or see any plane at time of 2nd hit.
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
One object, described as "white elephant" plane (maybe AWAC) was clearly passing the ST at time of second hit but was accidentally also captured as well.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=axSnkGueTsE&mode=related&search=
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_4_Jet.pdf
Eye-witnesses actually should help 9/11 TV fakery researchers, because their account also contradicts with what was shown on TV.
Maybe you can tell us exactly your position and the direction of the object you saw?
Ernie
I still would like to know how the 2 live feeds were faked. There were multiple vids of the plane from different angles over the next few days and I can tell you that to make all these others CGI would be an impossible task. I have been around CGI for the lasst 12 years and know many people in the business and they all will say the same thing. To say that there were no planes is simply absurd in the extreem
SteveW,
thanks for your response.
What kind of TV shows do you work for?
Uploading CGIs is not a big thing.
Once they're on a graphic server, it's a thing from a second.
I worked at TV for 10-12 years and that was partly my job, when i started. Later i was also set director and producer.
If both live helicopter provided us with some empty footage from 6-8 miles away and had been drilled to come back to their Airbase (maybe Fort Drum, which was nearby), another tv commando central was able to log into the same feed and did the CGI uploads, ligned up with the visible ring of the South Tower.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cFfvQJ1r9-Q&mode=related&search=
Since i know that working at LIVE TV shows is very hectic and questions are limited, noone really would ask where the feed actually came from.
The studio co-director sees the best feed on his control monitor and ofte n doesn't even know the name of the camera operator as well.
I asked around here a lot. Many camera operators work for the Union and every day or week for a different TV Channel. Until today noone knew any camera operator personally (or the helicopter pilots) which filmed the 2nd attack.
That's why we need the names of these pilots and camera operators.
My notion and hipothesis is that the footage was faked, which is easy to prove. What exactly did or did not hit the south tower is a completely different forensic task and cannot be proven by now.
I call it "nothing + x"
What is "absurde" or not should not be the notion for any credible journalist. I'm journalist since 3 decades.
War is "absurde" too and everyone reports about it.
My notion and hipothesis is that the footage was faked, which is easy to prove.
The word is hypothesis. And it is not easy to prove because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. We don't even need the video of the event (which couldn't be faked on all the videos, especially the amateur ones), since thousands of people saw it with their own two eyes. Either you're insane, a moron, or a troll. I'm really hoping it's the last one.
I'm journalist since 3 decades.
No, you're not.
Oh, and with a video with CGI that complex, it'd take days to export.
Now you've made the conspiracy even more complex because now you have to involve dozens of coders and modelers (and their higher-ups).
If both live helicopter provided us with some empty footage from 6-8 miles away and had been drilled to come back to their Airbase (maybe Fort Drum, which was nearby), another tv commando central was able to log into the same feed and did the CGI uploads, ligned up with the visible ring of the South Tower.
Ft. Drum is not nearby, it is in upstate New York, about 300 miles away. Why don't you do some research before coming on here and lecturing us?
Shawn and default,
the word was "journalist", not writer.
I started in germany, therefore english isn't my native language.
In 1999 i started to work for US TV but some language barrier wasn't a problem.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the 3 decades is a fact. I learned journalism in my 20s, but actually had my own mock newspaper when i was a kid. That might wanna amuse you, but that's not a point anyway.
Shawn furthermore states that i've "made the conspiracy even more complex because now you have to involve dozens of coders and modelers (and their higher-ups)..."
Not true. I made it more simpler.
The original aircraft CGIs could have been designed by everyone.
All you need was access to some of them. With some vector-key upload program you theoretically need only one guy. There is no need for a higher-up structure, if the guy was briefed to operate for an exercise.
The CGI wasn't complex at all.
It was a flat 2-dimensional graphic.
It takes 1 second to upload them.
They had at least 10-16 different ones to pick from, which also explains the variety of discrepancies of shape in the footage.
You're confusing 3-dimensional models with flat logos. There is zero rocket science behind it.
It's as easy, simple and fast as uploading the TV-Logos.
What kind of graphic departments did you work at? Ever worked for news?
It has to happen quickly. Everything is tested at least 20 minutes before the show, sometimes 1-2 hours before, depending on the schedule.
The footage *was* faked and it is very easy to prove, based also on at least 6-10 different methodologies.
Witnesses are not relevant for the hypothesis. Most of them do not even respond, if you ask them for more details of what they saw, as you can see with "Manny".
Fact is what they allegedly saw, is actually disproven by the contradictions within the footage.
I would like to cooperate with "witnesses", but they never do.
So how can i take them for serious?
dman,
fine, tell me their exact position and flight path description.
Why didn't you see it?
Did they film it?
"And I think that most of the CTer's are w/o test-tick-u-lar matter anyhoo."
They have only one dick among them, and it's Jason Bermas.
Now that everyone has a label, including myself, is there any new point coming from "lying_dylan"?
Anyone who is a "no-planer" obviously doesn't live in the NY/NJ area. They talk about this place like its a mythical land that no one actually lives in. My step-father is a traffic reporter for Shadow Traffic. Shadow Traffic uses a combination of helecopters and cameras placed around key parts of the city to gather traffic information. All of this information is relayed to a control center in the Meadowlands where my step-father works. After the first plane hit they pointed the cameras at the WTC Towers and saw the second plane hit. People in the office either saw it hit out the window or saw it on Shadow's CCTV system. So I guess the evil government managed to get into the CCTV system and add in the plane as well as somehow convincing the others that they actually didn't see a plane.
Richard,
i am from NYC and had my office a few blocks away from Ground Zero.
There was no documented CCTV camera which captured the second attack.
If you have some footage, please let me know.
Listen dumbass, 20 people who didn't see the plane means nothing when compared to the thousands of witnesses who DID. We even have a man who was on ONE OF THE FLOORS HIT by the aircraft, claiming that he saw the aircraft coming towards him. What else do you need? Thousands of witnesses vs 20 who were looking away? What are you, retarded?
Alex,
the original post was about the doctored 9/11 footage, not witness analysis.
Maybe *You* are confused or wants to start a fruit loop debate?
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
Why are you confusing the hypothesis?
It was a flat 2-dimensional graphic.
I've seen the video, and in order to fake that you'd need a flawless 3d image.
My point is that what the CTr's said was done in CGI would have taken more than a couple days. I saw the Youtube vid, very nice explanation but there could have been a number of explanations. The vids could have beeen done by the whaks after all it has been 5 years.
My thing is makeing CGI models, I tried doing animation but it was booreing.
I have some 3D CGI models that will be appearing in 3 movie trailers and have 3 CDs
of models selling at
http://www.marlinstudios.com/products/products.htm
And have been in a number of movies including the Matrix series.
I worked with Richard Hatch on his trailer that was in compitition for the new BSG, but we lost out, and for his trailer http://www.greatwarofmagellan.com/
I worked with the guys at Zoic makeing models for the New BSG and have a couple ships in the series.
I worked with The Hobb at Sony and fleshed out all his model designs. David Kerin is releasing a fan film flick next week that is really great with many of my models, unfortunatly most get blown up LOL.
I guess my point is that after all this time people could have done a lot with the vids, we don't know if these were the raw vids or ones that could have been modified after all it has been 5 years and much could have happended but to do what the whaks say would have taken a long time, my forte is modeling but I know what it takes to do CGI.
To do what you claim would take a 3D model. If there are faked vids then they were done by the whaks and have no bearing on what really happened. Your flat 2-dimensional graphic is simply BS
Bottom line is that 2 767's hit the towers and a 757 hit the pent
I also worked at Tyler Camera designing Nelson's chopper mount in 90
Mike does an excellent animation here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&mode=related&search=
My Gallery:
http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=26307
Maybe you can tell us exactly your position and the direction of the object you saw?
No, Osama, here's what I'm going to tell you. You are a terrorist supporter, a retard and a liar. Your self-centered attempt at performance art (for I know that's what this all is for you) is a callous and evil spitting on the grave of the victims of the terrorist attacks and a diversion away from the real perpetrators. I award you no points and my God have mercy on your soul, retard.
Manny
Do you think that he thinks all the plane parts that were found in the debris at the towers and the pent were CGI LOL
Nah. I think he, personally, doesn't believe a word of it. Like I said, it's performance art for him to see what shakes out from his crap.
You could be right, I think many may just want attention in any form
Manny said:
"..I've seen the video, and in order to fake that you'd need a flawless 3d image..."
Manny is just lying. All second attack footage clips have no 3-dimensional planes in it. They're all flat and 2D, because they're CGIs.
If you're so convinced, then why don't you rally to get *me* on FOX' Bill O'Reilly's show?
Strange that the Government didn't push that too, isn't it?
If the US GOV and O'Reilly are so convinced from themselves, why i wasn't able to show up on TV yet?
After all, i am one of the most hated persons in this 9/11 Truth Movement (according to 911blogger.com), allegedly also working for the US GOV, but all their and my "power" was to give me a silly line at Washington Post??
If 9/11 TV Fakery appears to be so silly, why not really discrediting it on MSM?
Don't talk plane parts, which can be easily planted. It is about doctored footage, that's my point.
If you don't get the difference, then ask O'Reilly to explain it for you.
So if you really want to get entertained, get me on Bill O' Reilly (No.1 coward and traitor of this country), otherwise it starts to get boring here.
Until then don't bore me to death, fellas :)
My best wishes to South Park ;-
http://www.911tvfakery.net
October 14, 2006
Ban at 911blogger.com triggers reversed 'No-Plane Hype'
Manny said:
"..I've seen the video, and in order to fake that you'd need a flawless 3d image..."
Manny is just lying.
We're supposed to believe the video analysis of a guy who can't assign quotes to the right person?
Go back to your studio or I'll picket your store until sales drop to zero, retard.
Ernie said
"Don't talk plane parts, which can be easily planted. It is about doctored footage, that's my point."
"All second attack footage clips have no 3-dimensional planes in it. They're all flat and 2D, because they're CGIs."
That is the biggest crock of crap I have ever heard. Have you ever done any CGI work or PS work? You still don't address the live feed that I saw happen in real time
http://debris.0catch.com/
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Here are just a few plane part piks taken the day in the streets of NY I guess yooue think a bunch of guys drove around on the streets dumping out parts with millions of people milling around and they did not notice anything. All the piks are numbered and are part of the evidence used at the Moussawi trial
I have been in and around this business a long time and I first gave you credit but it is becomming clear that you have not clue what you are talking about
the original post was about the doctored 9/11 footage, not witness analysis.
No, the original post was about an idiot who thinks that the video footage was altered, and his evidence in this case is a shadow making the aircraft appear darker. Which is silly and should require no discussion. Nor is any "witness analysis" required, simply listening to witnesses is enough.
Maybe *You* are confused or wants to start a fruit loop debate?
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
You're an idiot. People saying "Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see the plane." doesn't prove there was no plane. All it tells us is that this person didn't see it. I've seen a car accident before, but didn't see the actual impact. I heard a loud noise, looked over, and all of a sudden there are two wrecked vehicles in the middle of an intersection. Now, according to YOUR logic, the accident never happened. The US government must have planted thermite in those cars.
Also, while witnesses may not always be able to recall every single detail that they saw, they certainly wouldn't see a jumbo-fucking-jet if it wasn't there! Take for instance the accident I was talking about. I don't remember what the two drivers looked like, and there's no way I could pick them out of a lineup. But I DO remember that one vehicle was a silver SUV (rolled over) and the other was a black pickup truck. And this is several years later. People remember the things which stick out, and forget the smaller details. A goddamn 767 is a pretty big detail.
Why are you confusing the hypothesis?
That's not even a real sentence.
Steve, if you really designed some of the models in the new BSG, you're my new hero. That show's amazing, and the models are truly phenomenal. True to the original series, but totally realistic and good looking at the same time.
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/WABC1_CGI.jpg
I addressed the 2 live broadcasts.
This CGI above was used on ABC7, the other on FOX 11 is here in section #2
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
They're both flat and it's 2D.
It's a simple graphic silhouette.
Your point was about the production of the CGIs, i am talking about the uploads.
I said already it doesn't matter who produced these CGIs, it's about who had access to them and did the uploads.
Once these CGIs behave like flat logos or graphic inserts, it's a procedure of 1 second to air them 'live' on TV.
And this happened only twice on 9/11:
On FOX11 and ABC7, nowhere else in the world.
Why should i give you credit either?
You didn't even give us your resume.
Tell me, when you start rallying to get me on O'Reilly, otherwise there is nothing here to talk about right now :)
Over and out and thx for the PR and feedback.
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9546/randisouthparknoplaneshz2.jpg
Ewing -
If you're willing to believe such transparent stupidity, more power to ya' buddy. Seriously, though, if you ever come to a point where you feel like you have to act on your unique knowledge (it's unique because virtually nobody but you believes it. I guess that's part of the appeal, huh?) then please, please, seek psychiatric help before you do anything rash.
Ernie you are full of crap and don't have a clue what it would take to do what the toofers claim. Your flat 2D BS is just that BS.
I don't know if you are talking to me about credit but I never asked for it nor for my resume. It is real simple, I have been there and you have not
Thank you Alex, I just got a small part but some of my friends did work in the first 2 years. It was just nice to see somthing of mine on the screen even if it was just for a short time. I don't believe Zoic is doing the CGI now and I have been out of touch for a while
and don't really keep up with the series. I put up some links that you might find interesting.
I don't really care for the new series because Richards version was so much better but Bonnie Hammer does not like Richard and would not consider our effort. Tom desanto also did a version that was better but it was shelved as well and Ron Moore got the call. There are some fan flicks comeing out soon, if you are interested I will pass along the links
S
Deffinitely, I'd very much appreciate that. Thanks!
Alex here is a little pilot, it is low res and old school
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgRWZSmWZ9M
Here is my "G" and some others
http://www.colonialfleets.com/stevew/BSG/
guys, relax, don't argue with him...agree with him.
The entire truth movement is full of shaite. As long as we keep them divided, the infighting will prevent them from going anywhere, and as a result, sanity and logic will prevail. For every guy like ewing, there is another truther who thinks the "no-planers" are FOS...lets keep it that way.
TAM
Are you sure that's a real conspiracy movie and not one of the Screw Loose Change guys making an attempt at a parody;)?
Good post, dman.
I wonder if I should change my avatar or use a duplicate account without it when posting at this forum. Much as I love the 'Cross, I'm afraid the truthers will eventually cook up some theory about the ICRC being part of the "inside job" if they see the organization's logo here to often. It'd be just like them.
The plane turns black, and rotates to the left. Black, and to the left. Black, and to the left. Black, and to the left.
...African liberals behind 9/11?
Ernie you can post all the mindless babble you want but it is just that BS and you have done nothing to change that, but please keep up with your fantisies, it is mildly entertaining
I was going to post some sort of reply to "EZ2see"'s post, but then I somehow couldn't do it. Because it's people like him who really worry me.
It's not how these people are ignorant to evidence against them. It's how they unconsciously choose to be, by branding every dissenting view unworthy of analysis.
Popular Mechanics debunks the 9/11 myth? "No worries, they're doing it just because the owner is the cousin of..." Brah, forgot however it went.
Screw Loose Change disprove Loose Change? "Can't be. It has a cuzz-word in its title and insults Avery on several accounts. Clearly it's full of lies."
Firefighters' witness accounts not coherent with your myth? "They're bribed by Bush".
To be fair, it's not a view unique to truthers - every group of people with faulty arguments do it:
Negative review to Inconvenient Truth: "Gore has no degree", "it's a political film", "these liberalz want 2 ruin our economy", and so on.
Negative critisism of the theory of evolution: "Darwin was a racist", "evolution has caused the rising crime rates around the world", and what the Heck not.
See the pattern here? "You don't have to investigate these opposing claims, 'cause they come from people who shouldn't make them in the first place". "Don't bother with this scientific idea, it's not only false, but it's also destructive".
That the "truthers" continually bring up arguments debunked years ago is telling of their wilfull ignorance. It's remniscent of Creationists' insistance that the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.
The toofers will never explain their theories in detail for people to understand, they just whine. Their excuses are getting more desperate every day.
After 5 years you would think that the toofers would have filed charges by now, just think what that would do for their cause but they have not so how can any body take them seriously except the whaks themselves. It is the leaders who are benifitting by sucking in these mindless fools in and makeing money off these fools, this is really what this socalled truth movement is all about, nothing more.
Post a Comment
<< Home