Quote:
There is a huge difference in sound from some random plane flying high up in the sky somewhere and one heading for a building. Many witnesses are recorded describing the loud sound of the plane about to hit the building which you can also hear in all the close up angles of the footage of the flight 175 impact. Your explanation does not account for this, plus there is no evidence. Also a very loud plane that is very close by can be described as a rocket sound because you do not usually hear a plane that close.
Don Dahler said that he had been on warzones and heard these different sounds, and what he heard did not sound like an airplane, but sounded like a missile.
The soundtracks on the videos are absolutely ludicrous. In the 'never before seen' video, we hear a swooshing sound and then a 'car bump' noise. In the 'podless' video (I forget the name of the guy who took it. He was canadian), we hear a really loud wind sound, in other videos we hear a missile-like screech. Never do we hear an authentic 767 engine approach.
Quote:
Your mistaken, the eyewitnesses are describing the event BEFORE they've been subjected to seeing it on TV. They're being interviewed AT GROUND ZERO ON 9/11! Right after the event is when eyewitnesses are MOST credible. They are describing facts BEFORE the FBI or Secret Service can "interogate" and "persuade" them.
But not before they can be poisoned by the bad actors on the ground. The perps had people at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center screaming "I saw this BIG plane!", but upon closer inspection, they appeared to be agents, posing as street eyewitnesses. I could give you some examples of these people if you want. One of the more obvious ones is the "mostly due to structural failure" guy.
And the replay was used to psyop some eyewitnesses:
Karim Arraki said that a smaller aircraft hit the South Tower, but then he was told that they saw a plane on the replay. Dick Oliver reported that some eyewitnesses on the ground were reporting a missile, but he was told that they saw a plane on the replay. Matt Lauer originally said that he thought the plane was smaller, but found out that it was bigger by watching the replay.
Quote:
How do you know that many of the witnesses were "video fakery professionals? You're making assumptions in believeing that every tourist who took photos that day are "in on it". As for people getting lucky in taking photos of the plane, there were thousands of people in the biggest tourist city in the most popular country all taking pictures of the largest terrorist attack to hit a major tourist attraction..... odds are some of the photos would catch an airplane hitting the already smoking building that has all the worlds eyes on it.
I never said that the eyewitnesses in general were video fakery professionals, but many of the amateur video-takers did, in fact, have graphics editing as their occupation. Devin Clark was a motion graphics editor, for example. Wolfgang Staehle was a 'video artist'.
There is a large amount of 'amateur' footage/pictures that are completely anonymous.
Quote:
The plane parts look like they came from a plane to me...
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/362/ ... entkc4.jpg
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2338 ... irehc7.jpg
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/8948/tritledyh5.jpghttp://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3479 ... ineha4.jpg
http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/ ... number.png
Granted they are small but that's because the plane blew up and shredded it's way into the face of the building. You wouldn't expect to see massive pieces of intact plane.
I said that most of the photos of alleged pieces on that site you linked to were not discernible. That was one of the problems. Those discernible ones are the ones that have other problems. They look staged, they're in concealed easy-planting places, and they aren't damaged.
Quote:
Evidence?
It's a theory. I'm sure you have theories about what happened too. When an event does not add up, we must think of how things could have happened.
Northwoods involved dropping a plane full of agents off at an air force base, but since the passengers were not agents, they were probably killed. Consider that many of them were ex-government. People who would have known too much.
Quote:
That's speculation. Just because evidence was not found right away doesn't mean it's not evidence.
I still don't trust it. That means that it could have been planted. Just like how photos of those two pieces of plane wreckage at Shanksville were released four years later.
Quote:
I've seen both videos and as a professional in the Computer Generated Imagery industry, I don't buy the "nose out shot" at all. It's clearly just part of the explosion that looks kinda like but not really like the nose of the airplane. When you watch the whole shot, the so called nose continues to change shape like a cloud of concrete thats being ejected by the impact of the plane and the ensuing explosion which that is what it is.
The heights for NoseIn/NoseOut match up. It looks way too much like the nose for me to dismiss. Shack is wrong in calling it a 'micro-precision match' with Nose In, but as his NOSED OUT video shows, it looks very much like the nose.
Quote:
Other so called "evidene" in September Clues is the apparent different colors of the sky. When you have different angles of the plane hitting the building, with different cameras on different settings, you'll have some differences in overall hue. When some shots are pointing more toward the sun than others you will have drastically different shots with vastly different contrasts.
Never before have I turned on the TV to see colors in the skies like I did on 9/11. These are supposed to be top notch national news cameras.
Quote:
Of course he's going to defend his tv fakery.... I'm not buying... He just uses the same techniques again of fading the same image on top of itself to have a "micro precision match".
No, without fading, Shack shows how they fit. Not a microprecision match, but it fits pretty well, and the height matches up well also.
Quote:
You attack Anthony Lawson and Jim Hoffman but why don't you post who the no-planers work for?
Because I don't know of any hard spook connections. Reynolds worked for the labor department. Anthony Lawson gets a lot of stuff wrong in "September Clues-Busted", such as the issue of when the plane should come into frame in the WNYW shot. He also omits most of the evidence in September Clues. If he truly can bust the documentary as disinformation, then he should do it point-by-point, because from what I saw, it looked like he was using straw man tactics (Carefully picking which claims he could argue against, and blowing them up to make them seem like the key points of the documentary).
I'm suspicious of Anthony Lawson because he only has a 2 minute video dedicated to debunking the official version, and all of the rest of his work has been dedicated to attacking No Planes research. Isn't debunking the government's story more important than the Plane/NoPlane debate?
I know Hoffman is an infiltrator because he works for MSRI as a senior graphics programmer, and MSRI is funded by the NSA, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Naval Research. He pushes that Flight 93 was shot down when the evidence indicates it didn't crash there. He pushes the idea that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon by using 'eyewitness testimony' from the folks who claimed to have seen it, ignoring the fact that many of them work for the Pentagon or are major spooks like PNAC's Gary Bauer.
Quote:
I am convinced that the towers were demolished with the aid of Thermate cutter charges because there is EVIDENCE, physical and video evidence. The chemical compounds found at Ground Zero are a fingerprint so to speak of what was used to bring the towers down.
I used to believe that thermite/thermate was used, but I don't feel that the evidence supports that conclusion. Where is the elevated levels of Barium Nitrate? If there was molten metal, where was the steam explosions?
Molten metal appears to be a distraction. Read this article by CB_Brooklyn, which analyzes the case for molten metal, which is the key evidence of thermite/thermate:
WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60Quote:
I don't know if Greg Jenkins is an agent or not nor do I like him very much but Judy Wood DID NOT WIN THE DEBATE BY ANY MEANS! She explains that putting a fork in the microwave is somehow proof that the towers were destroyed by spacebeams!!?? I mean, this lady doesn't have a clue of what she's talking about nor does she even make sense. She thinks the pieces of the collapsing tower are falling up.. I'm not joking here.
People should watch this and judge for themsleves:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xgN591u3MhQhttp://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fWzZocY-sUQhttp://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CYAwR3f16Z4http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=d2E70dsEnJ8It was an ambush interview by Agent Greg Jenkins and it was ambush because they needed to discredit Dr. Wood. As CB said, read the transcript and look at the whole thing without the voices or the body language or any of that. It helps hear the arguments from both sides more.
Quote:
More like irrefutable evidence that the "TV Fakery" videos are just that... TV Fakery.
Point out some TV fakery in a TV fakery video.
There is irrefutable evidence of TV fakery, like the fast birds and the missing plane shot.
Quote:
People can believe whatever they want to believe. I don't think everyone who believes in the no-plane theory is "disinfo", I have friends that believe in no planes. I think the people that originally made the TV Fakery videos are definitely disinfo and that some people are just easily coerced into believing some perceivably "convincing" film. My original point was that we get into some trouble when the media can give the image of 9/11 Truthers as being crazy kooks who think that no planes hit the towers.
Nah, they aren't disinfo agents man, these are people who were suspicious of the videos, did more looking into them, and realized the TV fakery. They are just researchers. Who can blame them for finding the videos suspicious? You can have aluminum planes that slice through steel buildings, black United Airlines planes, speeding birds, and contradictory flight paths.
Quote:
My original point was that we get into some trouble when the media can give the image of 9/11 Truthers as being crazy kooks who think that no planes hit the towers. People not aware of any information about 9/11 Truth would automatically come to the conclusion that we're all nuts instead of looking at the REAL evidence like the clear implosion of WTC 7.
Actually, many of the people I've talked about TV fakery to are completely open to it. They do, of course, have a lot of questions, but they aren't laughing when I say that the videos appear to be fake.
Mostly, I start people off with the Shanksville evidence, the hijacker's government ties, the war games, the lack of military response, and foreknowledge. When they are doubting 9/11, I'll give them some of the deeper stuff.
Quote:
I have had plenty of experience working in the CGI and computer animation field and can say with great certainty that the evidence shows that REAL planes were involved in 9/11 and the videos "proving" otherwise all use tricky editing and TV fakery themselves to sell the lie that is meant to discredit the real progress the 9/11 Truth Movement has made.
1) Are you saying, as a CGI/Animation expert, that the videos could not possibly be fake?
2) If the purpose of NPT/TV Fakery was to discredit the movement, then the mainstream media would cover it more and the debunkers would cover it more. The media only had Morgan Reynolds on once, to my knowledge, and never let him back. The debunkers don't touch NPT. Mark Roberts even has a policy against debating no planers. If No Planes was meant to discredit the movement, the MSM/Debunker shills would be all over it.
Quote:
It is worth mentioning that if the government faked footage of planes hitting the buildings to convince us all that the terrorists did it, then WHY DIDN"T THEY FAKE A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON???!?!?!
So they could keep us in the dark about it. They want us confused.
