Next Step - Debunking Wtc Destruction Videos? Options

[investigate911.s...]

After reading and watching many many statements regarding the occurrence of video fakery on 9/11, a frightening thought struck me.
What if the acceptance of video fakery gives the 9/11 "debunkers" the opportunity to also debunk the numerous videos of the towers destruction? I see a danger in speculating and bringing forward the issue of video fakery, since it could result in debunkers start claiming that the videos showing the Twin Towers and Building 7 coming down are also fake... Then we are seriously screwed (parden my French).
(IMG:http://investigate911.se/images/WTC_North_Tower/wtc1_north_tower_explodes.jpg)
Thoughts?
/M

[KP50]

Thoughts?
/M

The number of ridiculous theories surfacing would suggest a deliberate campaign to flood the internet with bogus 9/11 information making it more and more difficult to sort out the genuine issues from the far-fetched. Just try it for yourself. The most prevalent is the "no planes/video fakery/beam weapon" theory which effectively does away with all the obvious evidence that 9/11 is an inside job.

This theory can lose ...

1. The evidence that the planes were not 175 & 11, the flashes on entry (all video fakery).
2. Any explosions in the towers (see attacks on Willie Rodriguez).
3. The massive temperatures underground (see threads about that being a "psy-op").
4. Pentagon or Shanksville (rarely mentioned).

The whole campaign is one of "heat and light". Some of it is pseudo-scientifically presented, some of it is bizarre - but the outcome is to make it harder for Mr and Mrs Joe Public to work things out for themselves. The Media already makes sure that to be sceptical about 9/11 means you are a tin-hat wearing idiot, the "no planes/video fakery/beam weapon" people are there to confirm the fact. And what's more, you can never prove them wrong as they will just disappear for a while and come back with exactly the same theory/video a few months later.

This is of course a generalisation and not intended as an accusation against specific individuals.

[Quest]

Thoughts?
/M

The number of ridiculous theories surfacing would suggest a deliberate campaign to flood the internet with bogus 9/11 information making it more and more difficult to sort out the genuine issues from the far-fetched. Just try it for yourself. The most prevalent is the "no planes/video fakery/beam weapon" theory which effectively does away with all the obvious evidence that 9/11 is an inside job.

This theory can lose ...

1. The evidence that the planes were not 175 & 11, the flashes on entry (all video fakery).
2. Any explosions in the towers (see attacks on Willie Rodriguez).
3. The massive temperatures underground (see threads about that being a "psy-op").
4. Pentagon or Shanksville (rarely mentioned).

The whole campaign is one of "heat and light". Some of it is pseudo-scientifically presented, some of it is bizarre - but the outcome is to make it harder for Mr and Mrs Joe Public to work things out for themselves. The Media already makes sure that to be sceptical about 9/11 means you are a tin-hat wearing idiot, the "no planes/video fakery/beam weapon" people are there to confirm the fact. And what's more, you can never prove them wrong as they will just disappear for a while and come back with exactly the same theory/video a few months later.

This is of course a generalisation and not intended as an accusation against specific individuals.

KP50, I am sure by now you are not specifically knocking those that claim TV fakery, true? I have seen no evidence whatsoever of DEWs and I've debated those that claim this and those that claim TV fakery do not automatically believe DEWs were used.

There are those that wanted to hang onto PODS early in the movement and those that questioned the theory were shouted down. Guess what? PODS has been shot down. I know of very few veteran truthers that hold onto that theory anymore and it seems that those that do are the least knowledgeable on the tower strikes.

The original poster here makes a fair point and yes, it's something that has occurred to me as well, however, it is what is. You cannot let politics decide what is truth and what is not. Soon as you start playing politics with truth you fall into the trap of infighting. FYI, this question has been raised in the past and it's been decided upon on this site that this topic can be freely debated. There are other sites, whose names shall not be mentioned, where members are harassed and banned on a regular basis because of what they believe. Those sites do not have a problem playing politics with the truth.

To the original poster, I see you have all of 14 posts to your name. How long have you known of 911 truth and what do you believe of the tower strikes? BTW, there are many INDEPENDENT videos and photos proving the control demolitions of the towers such as Rick Segel's 911 EYEWITNESS, so your fears are unfounded.

One last point, if TV fakery was truelly the Achille's heel of the truth movement, the perps would be all over us. Guess what? It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen. In fact, the claims of controlled demolitions has been the subject of the media's ridicule, not TV fakery. Why is that? If TV fakery is discussed it points to the media's actual INVOLVEMENT in 911 as opposed to coverup only. TV fakery exposes the head of the snake. That's why the media does not go after it.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jan 6 2008, 09:48 PM

[KP50]

Thoughts?
/M

The number of ridiculous theories surfacing would suggest a deliberate campaign to flood the internet with bogus 9/11 information making it more and more difficult to sort out the genuine issues from the far-fetched. Just try it for yourself. The most prevalent is the "no planes/video fakery/beam weapon" theory which effectively does away with all the obvious evidence that 9/11 is an inside job.

This theory can lose ...

1. The evidence that the planes were not 175 & 11, the flashes on entry (all video fakery).
2. Any explosions in the towers (see attacks on Willie Rodriguez).
3. The massive temperatures underground (see threads about that being a "psy-op").
4. Pentagon or Shanksville (rarely mentioned).

The whole campaign is one of "heat and light". Some of it is pseudo-scientifically presented, some of it is bizarre - but the outcome is to make it harder for Mr and Mrs Joe Public to work things out for themselves. The Media already makes sure that to be sceptical about 9/11 means you are a tin-hat wearing idiot, the "no planes/video fakery/beam weapon" people are there to confirm the fact. And what's more, you can never prove them wrong as they will just disappear for a while and come back with exactly the same theory/video a few months later.

This is of course a generalisation and not intended as an accusation against specific individuals.

KP50, I am sure by now you are not specifically knocking those that claim TV fakery, true? I have seen no evidence whatsoever of DEWs and I've debated those that claim this and those that claim TV fakery do not automatically believe DEWs were used.

There are those that wanted to hang onto PODS early in the movement and those that questioned the theory were shouted down. Guess what? PODS has been shot down. I know of very few veteran truthers that hold onto that theory anymore and it seems that those that do are the least knowledgeable on the tower strikes.

The original poster here makes a fair point and yes, it's something that has occurred to me as well, however, it is what is. You cannot let politics decide what is truth and what is not. Soon as you start playing politics with truth you fall into the trap of infighting. FYI, this question has been raised in the past and it's been decided upon on this site that this topic can be freely debated. There are other sites, whose names shall not be mentioned, where members are harassed and banned on a regular basis because of what they believe. Those sites do not have a problem playing politics with the truth.

To the original poster, I see you have all of 14 posts to your name. How long have you known of 911 truth and what do you believe of the tower strikes? BTW, there are many INDEPENDENT videos and photos proving the control demolitions of the towers such as Rick Segel's 911 EYEWITNESS, so your fears are unfounded.

My main interest in is identifying the issues that most easily help people see that 9/11 is an "inside job". I still have an interest in the "pod" despite your rather grand statement that nobody belives in it any more, but I don't believe it is the easiest way to convince people.

Now given that TV fakery has not been proven to people who already know it is an inside job (such as myself), what use is it with the rest of the world? (And please don't launch into a rant about WTC7 and the BBC announcing it early as being TV fakery, I am referring to the whole scale inserting of images into live or virtually live broadcasts).

Many people believe in "No Planes" but seem unsure what really happened. So if I start a chat with my neighbour about it, he will ask "what did I see on TV then?" and do I then answer "it was all TV fakery". He may then enquire of the people in New York who saw a plane hit a tower. What do I say then? They were all in on it? Even that woman who is on the phone on live TV sounding severely traumatised as she describes the plane fly over her?

So if you want "No Planes" to fly, so to speak, you have to provide more evidence. And not just pretend the event only took place on TV.

[Quest]

Thoughts?
/M

The number of ridiculous theories surfacing would suggest a deliberate campaign to flood the internet with bogus 9/11 information making it more and more difficult to sort out the genuine issues from the far-fetched. Just try it for yourself. The most prevalent is the "no planes/video fakery/beam weapon" theory which effectively does away with all the obvious evidence that 9/11 is an inside job.

This theory can lose ...

1. The evidence that the planes were not 175 & 11, the flashes on entry (all video fakery).
2. Any explosions in the towers (see attacks on Willie Rodriguez).
3. The massive temperatures underground (see threads about that being a "psy-op").
4. Pentagon or Shanksville (rarely mentioned).

The whole campaign is one of "heat and light". Some of it is pseudo-scientifically presented, some of it is bizarre - but the outcome is to make it harder for Mr and Mrs Joe Public to work things out for themselves. The Media already makes sure that to be sceptical about 9/11 means you are a tin-hat wearing idiot, the "no planes/video fakery/beam weapon" people are there to confirm the fact. And what's more, you can never prove them wrong as they will just disappear for a while and come back with exactly the same theory/video a few months later.

This is of course a generalisation and not intended as an accusation against specific individuals.

KP50, I am sure by now you are not specifically knocking those that claim TV fakery, true? I have seen no evidence whatsoever of DEWs and I've debated those that claim this and those that claim TV fakery do not automatically believe DEWs were used.

There are those that wanted to hang onto PODS early in the movement and those that questioned the theory were shouted down. Guess what? PODS has been shot down. I know of very few veteran truthers that hold onto that theory anymore and it seems that those that do are the least knowledgeable on the tower strikes.

The original poster here makes a fair point and yes, it's something that has occurred to me as well, however, it is what is. You cannot let politics decide what is truth and what is not. Soon as you start playing politics with truth you fall into the trap of infighting. FYI, this question has been raised in the past and it's been decided upon on this site that this topic can be freely debated. There are other sites, whose names shall not be mentioned, where members are harassed and banned on a regular basis because of what they believe. Those sites do not have a problem playing politics with the truth.

To the original poster, I see you have all of 14 posts to your name. How long have you known of 911 truth and what do you believe of the tower strikes? BTW, there are many INDEPENDENT videos and photos proving the control demolitions of the towers such as Rick Segel's 911 EYEWITNESS, so your fears are unfounded.

My main interest in is identifying the issues that most easily help people see that 9/11 is an "inside job". I still have an interest in the "pod" despite your rather grand statement that nobody belives in it any more, but I don't believe it is the easiest way to convince people.

Now given that TV fakery has not been proven to people who already know it is an inside job (such as myself), what use is it with the rest of the world? (And please don't launch into a rant about WTC7 and the BBC announcing it early as being TV fakery, I am referring to the whole scale inserting of images into live or virtually live broadcasts).

Many people believe in "No Planes" but seem unsure what really happened. So if I start a chat with my neighbour about it, he will ask "what did I see on TV then?" and do I then answer "it was all TV fakery". He may then enquire of the people in New York who saw a plane hit a tower. What do I say then? They were all in on it? Even that woman who is on the phone on live TV sounding severely traumatised as she describes the plane fly over her?

So if you want "No Planes" to fly, so to speak, you have to provide more evidence. And not just pretend the event only took place on TV.

Or, you can continue to promote planes and let people think you are mistaken about "remote-controlled" planes and that "fanatical Muslims" actually flew the supposed planes into the towers. Did that occur to you? Understand KP50, I do not go around telling everyone that no planes hit the towers. For the most part, what I post here, stays here. This stuff is more for veterans such as you and me, not for newbies. If/when the time comes for arrests, we will know who to look for with a more complete picture. Still, for those that already believe that 911 was an inside job, I do take the time to educate people on TV fakery and the PROBABILITY of no planes. TV fakery is proven and I have no qualms stating it as such but I only discuss no planes as a likely THEORY, not as an absolute.

By claiming no planes hit the towers, it means that "terrorism" as purported by the press and politicians is a complete contrivance and puts the blame squarely on Bush, Neocons and the media. No planes also makes clear the London and Spain bombings were likely inside jobs since 'Al-Qaeda' didn't fly planes on 911.

The following video PROVES the 1st tower strike Naudet brothers' video was edited to make it appear a large plane impacted the tower. Does this mean that no plane at all hit the tower? Not for certain, but it does make it more likely no plane, or a small plane or even more probable a missile, did. My bet is on no plane or missile.

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

This post has been edited by Quest: Jan 7 2008, 12:34 AM