This write-up is based on the 5-part video series "September Clues" here:

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice


Video Pt.1
At 8:23, the video makes the following claim:
So? This video is being shot from a helicopter. Videos from heli's are always choppy and break up quite frequently. This is absolutely no evidence of anything other than standard video problems from a heli.

I'm sure the anchor was doing other things in the studio like reading the latest news or getting info from his producer. It's not required to keep your eyes glued to the live shot at all times.

It wasn't a mic it was a phone and there is no indication of how far away the reporter was from the WTC to even register the impact sound.

8:04 Theresa Renaud's account from Chelsea.
This video claims that Theresa said she saw "another plane hit" even though no planes were mentioned in the interview and that she didn't know what hit the building. Of course she didn't see or didn't know what hit, but she's talking to CBS news which is scrolling on the bottom of the screen that a plane hit and she knows a plane hit that's why she said there's another one. This video claims that Theresa has superhuman vision to see a plane hit the towers from Chelsea. Many people have some sort of binoculars when working in tall office buildings so that they can see the sights. It's possible she had her own or she borrowed someone elses. When you look up and see a jet high up in the sky, it can be 4-6 miles up. It shouldn't be too hard to see a jet from two miles away.

6:07
News anchor says a "terrorist act of proportions we cannot imagine" after second plane hits the WTC and this video calls the anchor's words prophetic? What else is the anchor or anyone else supposed to think? Two planes deliberately hit two different buildings on purpose and we're not supposed to think terrorist act? Calling the anchors words "prophetic" is deliberately misleading.

4:50
This video attempts to say that the nose of the plane is exiting out of the building. In the pics below, i will show that it is not the nose of the plane exiting the building.

This first pic is a screen capture from the video showing both noses side-by-side:


Clearly you can see the different shapes and sizes and they are no where near identical:




0:23
This video claims that both "fade-to-black" incidents happen at the precise moment the plane hits the second tower. The FOX fade-to-black happens after the plane has already hit and fake "nose" has come out of the building. The CNN fade-to-black happens just before the plane touches the tower. Therefore these fade-to-blacks are not at the same exact time as the video claims. Also both shots were from heli's and as said earlier, video from heli's is very choppy at times. To say that the fade-to-blacks both happen at the same exact time is deliberate deception because they don't happen at the same exact time.




Video Pt.2
9:29
This video claims that the plane trajectory is almost perfectly horizontal. Look at the distance away and the shot is at ground level. The second shot is higher up and almost straight on to the plane so the plane's final maneuver can be seen more clearly before impact.

8:53
This video claims that a Boeng 767 should look like a bright silver red white and blue American Airlines jet and then asks what is this black object flying in full sunlight? That object isn't black, it's the dark blue paint scheme of United Airlines. More deliberate deception.

8:20
This video shows different angle of impact and claims the jet had white wings? How about wings are being accented by sunlight? More deliberate deception to say the wings change color when they are only being accented by sunlight.

8:00
This video shows more "conflicting clips" like the wings of the jet getting brighter due to sunlight. How's that "conflicting"? Seems like deliberate deception to me.

7:03
This video claims that the two different shots of the planes are not the same plane. Also says one plane is black and one is white. I've showed earlier that one is dark blue and that sunlight is making the wings brighter. Also this is two different shots by two different cameras and the color of two different cameras will not be identical. Yet more deliberate deception.

4:02
This video claims amateur video has second impact cut out yet if you listen to the person recording, she says "oh my god, what's happening". It's possible the camera was on stand-by and they didn't see the second plane actually hit. More deliberate deception to claim the scenes were cut out of an amateur video with no proof.

2:37
This video claims plane had no wings, obvious compression problem. Also very deceptive to make this claim when using compressed and poor quality internet videos.



Video Pt.3
9:38
This video claims heli video is planeless but then says that "it's there" at 8:38. How can you call this a planeless video and then say the plane is there one minute later? Deliberate deception.

8:30
This video shows 2 clips side-by-side of the second impact and then claims that the backdrop in the video on the right was gone. More blatant deception here. This one tops the cake of the deliberate deceptive tactics of the video author. The video on the left is from a heli up high and the video on the right is from a building or ground-level and mostly stationary. How can you assert that the backdrop of a video is gone when these are shot from two different locations and heights? Purposeful blatant deception.



Video Pt.4
Nothing of significant value to comment on in this part.



Video Pt.5
The first part of this video picks out tiny little sounds in phone calls to the networks and then claims that it's a cue to activate the fake plane image. Anybody can take multiple phone calls and find a sound at a certain time and then try to say that all these different sounds on all these different phone calls near the same time has to mean something. It's deceptive to make this claim with no proof.

4:25
This video claims that background of current picture is grey-white and the foreground is color. Maybe that has something to do with all the grey-white smoke and dust in the air in the background and not in the foreground? It's deceptive to point this out to make it seem like video fakery.


As i've shown, this series of videos uses deliberate deception, disinformation and purposeful misleading and twisting of the facts to make you see what they want you to believe.

The following video was posted in another thread as "more evidence". Let's check it out:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s_ySSJ_L6Zs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


0:59
This video says that the clip being played has no plane, yet the plane is clearly visible.

1:49
This video has two videos side-by-side and then claims one must be fake. Why? Both videos show the plane hitting the building. Nothing fake here to see.

2:47
This video asserts that the "evil perps at WB-11 are reading from the terrorist script". And then it says "Proof Positive!". Yes, it's proof positive, like i mentioned in my above write-up, that two planes hit two different buildings, so what are the news anchors supposed to think? What would you think? Terrorist attack is the only thought at the time and these poor videos don't tell us what somebody is supposed to think if not a terrorist attack. Deliberate deception.

4:49
This video asserts that the plane can only be seen on live tv and that the reporter didn't see a plane. If you listen to the reporter, he says it must be out of his view. If the reporter is at ground level on the north side of the towers, the towers would be obstructing his view and he would only see an explosion and not the plane. Deliberate deception.

The name of this video is 911 Octopus 8: Media Perps unmasked. Seems like the only perps unmasked are the disinfo perps putting out these rediculous, deliberately deceptive and misleading videos.

More lies from the Pentacon Hoax artists.

Bonez, I watched the two documentaries you linked to, and it's clear to me that you're just trying to promote some ridiculous theory of yours and didn't do any work. There is clearly something wrong with the videos on 9/11, but it may have been necessary for the government to take over the airwaves in order to help fight the war on terror.

You should be very ashamed of your lies and misrepresentation. You're helping the terrorists.

It seems you may have come to our forums just to spam. Care to tell me what theories i'm trying to promote? Anybody? I surely don't know. Of course i didn't do any work, the two posts above yours are invisible. :ph43r:

Keep it civil, people. It isn't necessary to attack anyone -- simply provide your evidence and let it speak for itself.

@ Sarah Cohen: First, it is customary for a new member to post an introduction in the Welcome forum. Second, BoneZ is a respected member of this community and a broad-brush attack lacking details/evidence to counter BoneZ's well thought out and obviously time consuming presentation is not appreciated.

YOU should be ashamed of not being able to understand written text, which clearly states the video in question is a misinformation.

Who do you mean with "Pentacon Hoax artists"?
The govt. or Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

Sarah, I can smell a shill about 250 ft. against the wind,
but I am always glad if someone prooves me wrong.

In case you are a shill, I feel the need to tell you that
we all are aware of the different tactics these people applying
here. You used at least 2 of the basic ones, plus one very subtile
one: Picking a jewish Nickname. So, I want to make sure, once and for all:

Shills are treated as shills on PF911T. Nothing more, nothing less.
Any attempt to make anyone of us falling into anti-semitism is useless.
It will not happen. Period.

Please read this thread in the debate forum

And: Welcome to the forum, Sarah.



There is so much truth in this sentence, I am about to forgive you your attac.

Carl

What has my husband's ethnicity got to do with anything?

Nothing.

But shills ond govt. loyalists love to play the "anti-semitism-card'
on the movement's arguments. Not because it is true in one or the other way,
but because it is easier than to argue on facts that contradict the official conspiracy theory.

Sarah, do us and yourselve the favour and introduce yourselve in the welcome forum,
make your position clear and read the thread, I pointed you to in the above post.

Thank you in advance.

Carl

This question - and what it implies - is precisely what we're talking about... it in itself implies anti-semitism, where none is intended.

I smell a rat and couldn't care less whether it is the Jewish denomination or otherwise, a rat is a rat is a rat.

Furthermore, 'ethnicity'?? As far as I know 'Jewish' is a faith, not a race.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Guinan

We're starting to get way off topic. Let's try to limit the comments to the work that i've done above as i would love to hear everyone's comments.

Check the new Groundbraking anlysis:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/...ity2.html#Graph

I've already debunked most of that stuff. I see they're still trying to say that it's the nose exiting the building when i've shown clearly that it's not the nose.

The problem is, you are doing exactly what many NPTERS are doing. You are telling us to look at videos while you somehow tell us exactly what happened and expect us to just take your word for it. except with you, if I happen to not agree with your visual analysis, I am a government agent and partially responsible for the death of thousands of people.


Right now all we have is people's opinions, absolutely nothing is conclusive at this point, yet we have people on both sides who believe so much that they know exactly what happened that they will get entire communities to rally against those who have different opinions, yet are on the same team..... Kinda reminds me of organized religion..

Bonez, that is not debunking.
A Plane in an stabalized footage,still speeding up, and down at a difference about
190 mp/h is physicly imposible to explain.

Leave the Videos for a sec. away? What evidenz is left to PROOF those planes hit the tower?
The Plane story is a Psychological Myth.

BoneZ,

What do you say is the object leaving the shadow on the exit-side of the building?

Photos
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/St...WasNotThere.jpg

Video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpw4FZcfiqM

Is the above clip a fake BoneZ? I believe it is, just like the CNN and FOX "live" feeds - yet the clip nicely coroborates the aformentioned CNN/FOX video feeds which are in the September Clues video you claim to have "debunked".

If it's not the nose of a plane, what is it leaving the defined shadow on the back of the building? Also, what do you make of the non-hole photo (Reuters) where the whole SHOULD be? No matter how you cut it, we have some video/photo fakery in the above photo collage. The above pics can't all be real because they are mutually exclusive.

The part I'm trying bast to understand is that it looks like we have a nose of a plane coming out the backside of the building. This "nose" casts a definite solid shadow and in all respects looks like a solid object. In fact, there are some that say it IS the nose of the plane and that it may be that of a plane whose nose was made of "special alloys"; check with some members at LETSROLL. I mention this not to deride anyone's opnions but rather to illustarte the diversity of opnions on the 2nd tower event. Let's also not forget the POD and missile theorists.

Now YOU claim the 2nd tower photo evidence proves a plane hit the building with no indepentdent, scientific analysis to back it up. Your "proof" is the photos and the same evidence that was probably planted at the Pentagon and Shanksville; an engine part, wheel and/or wheel strut, a piece of apparent fuselaghe on top of an adjacent building and a briefcase. Yet the video above 'proves' as some say that the planes nose exited the building yet you say it's NOT the nose. Is this correct? Is there ANYTHING coming out the back of the building leaving a shadow or is the photo a fake? Which is it? If there is something coming out the back of the building, then why no exit hole in the REUTER's photo? Or is the REUTERS photo fake?

On top of all this, we have exposed a "plane" witness (Gary Welz) as being a fraud. All this and and you still wonder why we persist in our theories and claims?

There is no hole in this picture because there was no nose exiting the building. You can't sit there and tell me that the two things in the following photo are the same thing:



Those two things are not the same size, shape or what ever. It's possible that it's in the shape of a nose because as the plane instantly decelerated, all the fuel was pushed through the fuselage to the front of the plane and you see that fuel in the shape of the fuselage catching on fire and burning. Since there was no nose, there is no hole and those are all obvious, factual points. Do you think there was someone standing up in the tower with a bazooka shooting a landing gear half way across Manhattan? No, the landing gear shot half way across Manhattan because a high-speed jet hit the building. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see simple things like this.

You can't say "because the nose was coming out of the building, the plane had to be fake" because that's not the nose nor even closely shaped to the nose, therefore the nose theory should be scrapped immediately.

You may think you have evidence to support your theories, but the videos i analyzed above show blatant and purposeful misleading and deception. There's no two ways around it.

It's very easily explained. Poor video quality on top of poor video software to slow down the videos will do that. See, easy!


Remember the landing gear shooting out of the tower upon the jet's impact? Do you think someone was standing in the tower shooting that landing gear out of a bazooka? That landing gear shooting across Manhattan was consistent with a high-speed object hitting the building. Easy stuff!

What i am saying is the makers of the videos posted above, use deliberate deceptive and misleading means to make their theory true. To push such blatant disinformation, the people pushing then become disinfo agents. You can't sit there and say that that is the nose of the aircraft exiting the building when i clearly showed that it's not even the same size, shape, etc. The videos above try to show the "fade to blacks" happen at the same time, which in fact they do not happen at the same time. You can't sit there and say that the reporters are reading from a terrorist script when you should know damn well that two planes hitting two different buildings can't be anything other than a terrorist attack. If one believes the things in the videos i analyzed are truthful and factual, then that person must be a disinfo agent because these videos push purpose disinfo.

Hope that's clear enough for ya!

Oh wow where you there, Live, to see the Landing gear shooting out the towers?
Ore do u have any Footage to proofe?

It shows YOU that. It shows me that you have mixed up the definitions of opinion and fact.

Read my first reply and you will see why this thread does nothing to prove video fakery wrong. Sure, some half-decent points were made which may weaken a couple of their arguments, but If you consider this to be 'conclusive evidence', then I really don't know what to say but 'wow'. I don't know about you, but where I'm from, what you are doing is called making 'inferences', 'theories and observations'. No different than npters, podders,nukers, CGIers, advanced weaponryers etc etc. Except they are agents, and you are not...

Paraphrased:
"no no, that was the sunlight!"
"There was a black flash at the moment of impact, so what?.. THEY ARE IN A HELICOPTER"

Points like that (which a majority of this article is) are all fine and dandy in an opinionated conversation, but considering this to be 'conclusive evidence' and pinning it as 'superior' is a joke and no different than what gravy and co does. If I didn't know any better, i would have figured this was a gravy parody thread.

When I came to this thread, I was really hoping to read a well written/thought out/professional analysis which may steer me one way or another. I'm personally stuck in between opinions since neither side has a single shred of hard evidence, just plenty of speculation backed up with childish insults, but unfortunately, this post is just the same lingo that would be laughed at in a professional setting if presented as 'conclusive evidence'. No offense man, but I expected much more than what I read...(especially considering it's pinned) ...

In my opinion, the suspects are the ones who are trying to censor theories and create as much division as possible (which would be the logical choice), not the ones researching and posting their theories. Notice how I said suspects? In America, people used to be innocent until proven guilty, hypocrisy wasn't something to be proud of and theories became facts ONCE PROVEN. It's funny (or sad) how quickly trends change, even amongst movements which are supposedly fighting against the trends and who acts as 'the moral superior'. This is why I feel no sympathy for a truther who feels others shouldn't have a right to present their ideas, yet still cries CENSORSHIP!!?!?! when youtube or google video removes one of their videos or screws with the counter..


..... Welcome to the twilight zone... I hope you brought a flashlight...

Haha

Sometimes I think it's pitch black out & a lot of us are walking around with flashlights bumping into each other ... "ouw", "oops, sorry" - "watch your falshlight there, buddy!?", "same to you, pal", "common guys", "hey", "watch it!??!" "sorry, dude!?"...

I find the evidence somewhat compelling - particularly the 'Octopus 8' link Quest offered up (I had seen it before actually - news clips from essentially the same vantage point, one stationary one from a helicopter ... one shows plane one doesn't).

However, 2 things bother me. One, there is conflicting evidence. If the image of the plane was inserted, why the pod? Why the flash? Makes me think someone is trying to f#$k with us. I'm curious - (and this is certainly the forum to ask this question) - were any of the radar blips followed all the way to the world trade towers by air-traffic controllers?

Two, due to the fact that the evidence is allegedly altered video, there is the possibility that certain video was altered simply to make people think that it was altered. This might seem outside the realm of possibility, but it is possible - in fact it is easier to remove a plane from footage than it is to insert it. Why would anyone do this? To discredit the movement and cause infighting among us. There is a distinct possibility that those alterior motives lie behind the prevalence of NPT evidence being circulated right now EVEN IF TV fakery was used, I believe. This is all the more likely given the overbearing nature of some of the people I see promoting this theory (friends like Quest excluded of course).

It would behove those that honestly want to promote this theory to stay focused on finding proof and present it in a professional manner and stop accusing anyone who doesn't buy into it a disinfo agent (I'm refering to other things I've read elsewhere, not any discussions that have gone on here by the way).

2 cents

I agree, if both sides would take that advice, this movement would be a better place.

However, 2 things bother me. One, there is conflicting evidence. If the image of the plane was inserted, why the pod? Why the flash? Makes me think someone is trying to f#$k with us. I'm curious - (and this is certainly the forum to ask this question) - were any of the radar blips followed all the way to the world trade towers by air-traffic controllers?[QUOTE]


Sanders,

IMO, it's misdirection. POD makes us think about what "kind" of plane was used instead of whether a plane was used at all. Also think about the 1st episode of Ruppert Murdoch's "Lone Gunman" series in which the 911 perps telegraph "radio-controlled planes" hitting the towers. I don't buy it for a New York second. Yet still, when you consider the CNN "America Remembers" video documentary, why on earth would Pentagon-controlled CNN release a video of a plane with a pod firing a "missile" in to the tower when they could just as easily have stopped it?! And the "POD/missile"photo is on the DVD jacket no less! Once again, this is the slight of hand. The POD/missle angle is for those of magical thinking that want to believe the Pentagon-controlled media gave them a gift. Think again. The 911 perps don't give ANYTHING away for free unless it's to their benefit.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

March 26, 2000
CNN AND PSYOPS
By Alexander Cockburn

"Military personnel from the Fourth Psychological Operations Group based at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, have until recently been working in CNN's hq in Atlanta."

IMO, a stronger argument would be that TV fakery was true but but a small plane or missile was instead of a plane. However even THAT angle is crumbling now as there are videos which show that show NOTHING approaching the 2nd tower yet the explosion taking place. If any wishes, I will be more than glad to supply them.

In regard to the TV fakery crew, Nico, BSRegistration, Webfairy and the rest, they are extremely independent free-thinkers and not prone to group-think. Interestingly enough, they even argue among themselves and call it like they see it. It took me a while to get over their style as well but after following them and there stuff, they have earned my respect. In addition, I entertained TV/photo fakery BEFORE I ever heard of these guys so when I learned of their material and theories, it wasn't a leap of faith. I questioned many of the 2nd tower photos when I was a member 3 years ago at LETSROLL. You can find a lot more of their material at
911researchers.com.

Lastly, ask yourself a question I have posed many times earlier...

Why, when the 911 perps could well have used planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville to cause "shock and awe" did they instead choose to FAKE planes hitting by way of fake witnesses, planted debris (see Operation Northwoods) and a fake (Pentagon) video?

Answer: The same risks and implications of using planes at the other "no pane" events apply to the WTC towers.

Another question: How did they get the large petrol-like explosion at the Pentagon when no big plane hit there? Hint: Renovation on the "hit" wing of the Pentagon had been complteted on the morning of September 11th.

I could go on and on and on.....

911 Researchers are not prone to group-think huh? Evidence would suggest otherwise - not so much a group as a pack of hunting dogs.

Ask yourself a question ....

Why, when they were capable of such incredible fakery at the twin towers, against the backdrop of an already burning tower, were they unable to produce similar fakery at the Pentagon?

That's a good point, haven't seen that question before. I do remember the NPT people talking about a specific type of camera used in the helicopter which lends itself to fakery or something. Wescam anti vibration camera is what is, I googled it. Why apart from the anti vibration thing I don't know.

Quest, I know the whole thing was a "made for TV movie".


I wouldn't be suprised by anything. But I see so clearly that this issue is but one of many that are being implemented to bring us down. As long as people researching this issue understand this angle, we are OK - but no one seems to. I worry. I am focused on Japan, others on tailoring the perp's power before the US invades Iran and the US is turned completely into a police state. And some people are getting all tied in knots over the no-plane issue??? PulEEEEEeeease. We already have enough evidence, what we don't have is power. And when I see no-planers creating division amongst us, it just reinforces my opinion.

I agree, CGI probably was used !! So what?? Present some proof for pier review, or shut up. It doesn't help us! Get the NY Times to report that the BBC reported on the collapse of WTC7 23 minutes too early - THAT WILL HELP US.

This is not about planes or no-planes, this is about international bankers, corporate elite, enslaving the planet, country by country.

Arghghghg.

Well said!

It's funny how that only applies to TV fakery but to absolutely none of the other details which have not been peer reviewed yet is accepted as fact.

You're advice if for all of those who believe in tv fakery to shut up, well my advice is for all of the hypocrites like you and bonez who feel that other's don't have a right to speak up to find a nazi movement. That is where you guys belong, not one trying to research the death of thousands of Americans, since obviously you guys don't give a damn about that, just what 'spreads better'.

See how that works?


If this is NOT about "planes or no-planes" what is it about? Making video makers rich? Going to 9/11 sites and buying their T-Shirts and clicking their ads? Well maybe, but it used to be about finding the truth. Well before this movement became overrun by a bunch of childish kiddies who thinks yelling in a megaphone and making their heroes rich is more useful then finding the truth behind 9/11.

It's sad what this movement has become, and the fact that this mindset is now accepted at major forums. Thank god there's still a few mature and intelligence people around like quest who doesn't give a sh*t about what kids in a forum thinks about him and will research all angles of 9/11. This movement needs more people like him and less cowards who will only do what their heroes tell them to do and only research what is accepted by the money makers in this movement.


Ps: Sanders, I would like for you to post ALL of the peer reviewed papers about the 9/11 conspiracy please. I mean, with all of the theories which you guys seem to accept, and since you can only accept theories which have been peer reviewed, I would like to see them all please. If not, anytime you agree on anything regarding 9/11, I will just tell you to "shut up" since it hasn't been peer reviewed.

Thanks in advance.

Continued:




That's like me asking.. Why would they fake a hit on the pentagon but not the WTC? It can go both ways and we can argue with retarded points like that all night, but it won't get us anywhere.

You see, all of these bland arguments are the type of arguments a J-Refer would use. Don't you guys see how flawed this logic is? "Well because there were lots of people, the video couldn't have been edited" or "why would they??" or "that was the SUN!!!" or "that's how it should have happened?!?!?!?" or "I'll just ban you.". If people who believe in video fakery are wrong enough that they aren't allowed to talk about it, then why don't you guys offer something INTELLIGENT for a change instead of the same crap like "oh, the building was full of explosives... yet they crashed a jet full of fuel into it" or "Newtonian physics took a day off" and then you have the audacity to tell them they can't share their baseless theories? You know, the regular stuff which contradicts itself yet is accepted like money in this movement.

Until some actual intelligent theories are formulated by someone who's motive isn't to sell a product, expect alternative theories to account for the stuff "the popular guys" and their groupies are too damn lazy and cowardly to look at. Thank god that not everyone gives a damn about what joe down the street thinks of them, some people are more concerned about the deaths of thousands of people.. May be hard to believe, but these people do exist. And it's those people which give me hope and which will bring us to the truth, not the 'groupies' with big mouths and big megaphones.

My last point is, if this movement isn't about finding the truth, why do you guys support "Pilots for 9/11 truth" since their priority is researching 9/11, more particularly the pentagon? Wouldn't you be better off in a section of this movement which only deals with buying and handing out dvds, buying t-shirts and yelling in megaphones? Or is that just one of those "accepted" hypocrite things?


I don't know what it will take for you guys to get the point that TV fakery is no less plausible than the millions of other theories in this movement. The only difference is, those who use this movement as a market says we are not allowed to talk about it, so of course, people blindly follow that retarded mindset.


Those who believe in tv fakery have as much right to talk about tv fakery as everyone else does about thermate, voice morphing, remote controlled planes and building 7. It's not like they have any less proof. Nobody has 100% solid proof of anything regarding 9/11, and if you guys actually give a damn about solving the puzzle, you would use your brain and quit chastising those who spend all day researching just because you don't agree with their findings. If you people took this advice months ago, we might actually be making more progress regarding the wtc, instead of just making more sales for people with big egos and big mouths and isolating those who have done most of the work.

To Slick and others, I was a little drunk last night when I made that last post - I apologise. I truly do regret my choice of words, because my biggest beef with regard to this issue is that I suspect it is being exploited to create antagonism within the movement. Gerard Holmgren's attacks on David Ray Griffin are just one example. I also suspect that it will in time be used to discredit the movement in the mainstream media - (I'm surprised it hasn't already). These are just suspicions, I could certainly be wrong - and it does not mean that I reject the theory outright, I do not, in fact I find it interesting and fairly compelling.

However, due to the fact that the TV fakery explanation is outside the realm of mainstream thought (I'm talking about would immediately be considered plausible to the average American - I realise that these technologies are quite advanced), the bar is higher. And I believe that the average person on the street would not accept the idea that the planes that hit the tower were CGI'd, not without some proof. Without bullet-proof evidence this theory can be exploited to discredit people who subscribe to it, and even people who don't. With proof, it's a different story. I don't know what that "proof" would entail, maybe the evidence assembled already constitutes real proof - I don't know. If it does, I think it needs to be presented better. But I do think that because the idea seems outside the realm of possibility to so many people that the bar is higher.

An example - no 757 hit the Pentagon. This was very controversial for a long time, mainly because of the light poles and eyewitness accounts. Thanks to the FDR data and the people that carried out that research, we know that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that those lightpoles had to have been downed by some other means, that either eyewitnesses were lying, or what they saw did not actually hit the building. Many people still will not believe it, but the proof is there, and because it's the government's own data, it is undebunkable. Whether pier revewed or not, when similarly solid proof exists for TV fakery a lot of people will become more open to this train of thinking.

Again, sorry for the drunken post

It was controversial, but the only reason why it has come as far as it has was because PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS IT (oh, and because it was in loose change of course), people didn't get banned for it, people didn't get isolated for it, people didn't get insulted for it. You guys constantly contradict yourselves. Oh btw, look into who started the NPT pentagon theories (you may be in for a surprise). It's interesting...You think people shouldn't discuss it without having solid proof, yet almost every single theory in this movement has absolutely no solid proof. The lack of logic that's being displayed is remarkable. To rephrase it, you expect them to find proof without being allowed to work with others in the movement or even share their findings. Sanders, I know you are a smart man, I've read a lot of your threads. But can't you see how ridiculously hypocritical you guys are acting? Think about this, sit back and really think. You are trying to tell me that editing some videos in real time is more far out to the average joe than ALL of the other stuff that is fed them by this movement? Enough that people aren't even allowed to talk about it? Yet everything else with no solid proof is fair game? Come on sanders, I know you are much more smarter and genuine than that.

Why, when they were capable of such incredible fakery at the twin towers, against the backdrop of an already burning tower, were they unable to produce similar fakery at the Pentagon?[QUOTE]


KP50,

It's a question I've answered before.

How do you know the 911 perps WERE NOT able to reproduce a better fake video for the Pentagon but instead chose to go with a flying potato so that by default the WTC TV/video fakery is accepted as the gold standard? Did THAT occur to you? In fact, by asking your question, you have proven my theory correct. You have decided that because the Pentagon video is sooo much worse than the WTC 2nd tower video that it can be accepted as fake; not by peer review, not by scientific and expert analysis, it LOOKS fake and it's not nearly as good as the 2nd tower CNN video.

Again, I apologise for my previous post - I really regret it, because I hear what you are saying and I don't in fact want to discourage anyone from doing research or discussing these things. I think you would be surprised that I actually think TV fakery was used - I was convinced more or less by the helicopter shot sans the plane, compared with another shot from the same vantage point clearly showing the plane. I know that inserting images like that from an irratically moving camera in a helicopter is difficult if not impossible, because the software needs exact positioning, zooming, and panning data from the camera to pull it off in anything like real-time, explaining why they were able to insert the image in the stationary shot but not the helicopter shot. At the same time, I am not sure and I can just hear my dad - "the planes were fake? You gotta be kidding". I would like to have some proof before bringing that up with my dad, and I don't think he would be convinced by the things I have seen. Compare that to the Pentagon issue, my dad wouldn't be convinced by those photos either, he would point to all the eyewitness accounts etc. But he couldn't argue with the FDR evidence. Does "proof" exist that TV fakery was used? I don't know. I do think it needs to be presented better. I also suspect that some people with ulterior motives may pushing this stuff, it really gets me when I read proponents of this theory (not any of you guys of course) slamming people like David Ray Griffin for not jumping on board, barely short of calling them shills.

Anyway, I've posted on this subject many times, I think everyone knows my position and why I have concerns ... and let me say that I am not saying the theory is bogus because there isn't any real proof, rather I mean to enchourage thorough research that results in proof, not only to separate the wheat from the chaff and get to the bottom of this, but also to sheild honest researchers from being attacked and called "nutty". If Judy Wood didn't have detailed evidence for her claims, she would have been ridiculed (she was anyway). Maybe the only thing that stops the MSM from grabbing on to her claims is that she does have documentation and they (the men behind the curtain?) know this and don't want to go there. I really don't know.

I'm saying, be careful, some may have ulterior motives for fomenting this hypothesis, regardless if it is true or not. I'm saying I don't trust researchers who slam others in the truth movement. I'm saying, I would like to see more solid proof, presented better. I too want the truth to come out - but the truth that I am most concerned about getting out is that 9/11 was a false-flag op, and that America hurtling toward h@ll in a handbasket.

That's just my position at this time

Carry on

[quote=Quest,Jun 28 2007, 06:50 PM] Why, when they were capable of such incredible fakery at the twin towers, against the backdrop of an already burning tower, were they unable to produce similar fakery at the Pentagon?[QUOTE]


KP50,

It's a question I've answered before.

How do you know the 911 perps WERE NOT able to reproduce a better fake video for the Pentagon but instead chose to go with a flying potato so that by default the WTC TV/video fakery is accepted as the gold standard? Did THAT occur to you? In fact, by asking your question, you have proven my theory correct. You have decided that because the Pentagon video is sooo much worse than the WTC 2nd tower video that it can be accepted as fake; not by peer review, not by scientific and expert analysis, it LOOKS fake and it's not nearly as good as the 2nd tower CNN video. [/quote]
I merely turned your argument of "proof" for TV fakery in the other thread back on yourself. You stated yourself "Why would they" as an argument for there being no planes at all - which of course does not prove anything. My "why would they" comment is actually irrelevant and just shows that once you start descending the rabbit hole, you can keep digging for ever.

Why would they, when designing the terrorist attack to change the world, run the risk of it all going wrong by faking the planes? Wouldn't it just be easier to fly the planes into the towers?

We can play this game all day ...... but in the end, the theory belongs to "you", the collective believers in it, so the onus on you is to prove it, not on us to disprove it.

I think you know full well why people are banned and it actually has nothing to do with what they say, and everything to do with how they say it. We have all seen them in action.

Is there proof for explosions at the towers? Well many, many people say they heard, felt, were injured by them. Could the explosions have a connection with the collapse of the towers? Yep, many people can make that leap. Does this point to an inside job? Why, yes it does.

Now try it with the TV fakery and beam weapons and see how far you get? If you don't like, get on and prove it.

Although I notice Mr Rodriguez is being "debunked" by the team at 911 Researchers, such a valuable community service they perform (ironic smiley to be inserted).

You seem to be confused with the definition of proof. The word you are looking for is "inference" or "theory", in which case, that is no different than what those who believe in video fakery have to offer, the only difference is you have prioritized your theories in your mind and seemingly believe that editing videos in real-time is impossible?! (cue twilight zone music). If we had solid proof, then why the hell are we sitting on our asses and not doing anything with it? That's because we have nothing except for details, no proof of anything regarding the wtc. Sure, we think we know a lot about 9/11 and it's more than obvious that it was at the very least, an inside job, but that is all we know for sure, the rest is theories, speculation, scattered witnesses and bits and pieces of information which has been slowly pieced together over time. (oh, and plenty of books and documentaries, hey soon, we'll even have a blockbuster!! how exciting, someone's bound to get rich from that and not invest a penny back into the movement..Great for them! )

"The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and (non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory."

Bone Z,

I rarely join forums to discuss my research.

I am however baffled by the existence of a man of such silliness as you are proof of. The evidently enormous time you've spent trying to 'debunk' September Clues' is a sad testimony to what lenghts a man will go to deny hard evidence - which in six years of research has only been trickling out of a few logic minds. So you are telling people to stay away from my work?

My only reply can only be : stay well away from BoneZ.

simon shack aka socialservice

Seems you've been mis- (or dis-) informed. It has nothing to do with you personally or your work. It's the idea, the concept. You may very well be sincere in your efforts to find tv fakery, but your presentation in the videos and the way you put forth those presentations makes your "evidence" look blatantly false and purposefully misleading. Maybe you do this on purpose, maybe you don't realize you do this, maybe it's an accident, but it's for others to decide after i present my review of this topic and your work.

In my opinion, there is not a single shread of hard evidence to support your position. I'm told i've presented it well in my write-up. No where in my write up did i say anything personally about you or did i tell people to stay away from you or your work.


Yes, stay well away from me as the NPT/tv fakery people are scared because i tell the truth!

Dave von Kleist and i got into a few email exchanges over his "pod" theory as he presented it in 9/11 In Plane Site. I showed him the debunk of the "pod" and he was well aware of the debunks, but we agreed to disagree and moved on. It appears by telling people to stay away from me personally that you want to make this personal.

Agree to disagree on this topic, let us all discuss this topic like adults, but to make this personal shows your maturity and intelligence level.

As it says <<-------- over there by my name, i'm a 9/11 researcher. As a researcher, one must separate the wheat from the chaff, the real logical evidence from the rediculous theories that are either blatantly false or have no merit. If i see something that i don't think is truthful, i will present evidence and let others decide. If you want to present evidence countering mine, please be my guest. But it would seem that since i started this thread, there has still not been one single person that has tried to counter what i presented. That, in and of itself, says a thousand words.

BONE Z WROTE :

But it would seem that since i started this thread, there has still not been one single person that has tried to counter what i presented. That, in and of itself, says a thousand words.







Evidently, no one is interested in your debunking efforts.


Maybe you have an opinion of your own - about 911 ? I'm truly interested.

same here

My "opinion" is the same as 99.9% of the rest of the 9/11 truth movement. That's why theories that have no basis or credibility like these, stay in the Alternative forums on most sites. These "theories" have been unaccepted/unsupported for how many years now? I don't see them being accepted, embraced, supported any time soon.

99% of the truth movement? Are you sure about that? Even if that were true, many of the most senior and knowledgeable members of the truth movement suspect TV fakery. That would include Jeff King (MIT), Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Painter, Sanders and myself (52 years old for what it's worth) and possibly Cary. We also happen to have a lot of life experience between us.

I'll take the above company against your "99%" 18 year old kids who think because they saw one DVD they know all they need to know about 911 and US history, any day.

Better take a look around yourself.....

Yes, I do suspect that some amount of TV fakery took place.

At the same time, I'm no expert, it's just my opinion from some of the things I've seen. AND, it doesn't matter now. What matters now is that an independent and thorough investigation of 9/11 take place and the perps get their just rewards. I'm 52 as well. Not that that matters outside of me just getting old.

Here's the big problem IMO - two people are looking at the same thing and one says it's red and one says it's green. The one guy is yelling at the other guy, "how can you say it's green when it's red??" - "Red?? It's green, you moron!??" - "Did you look at it??" - "Yeah, I'm looking at it, it's green!".

We really have to let each other see red or green, whichever it is they see. If someone runs across something that indicates that it actually is more red than green or vise versa, great.

Imagine this. A bunch of unnamed and very clever people are planning the 9/11 attacks. They've got it pretty much worked out, but they want some insurance that they will never get caught (that's usually where killers focus most of their attention and planning, at least on Columbo...).

First of all, they make sure the people that are on the inside are really on the inside, that they won't blow the whistle if things start to fall apart. (By the way this idea was elludicated in the film "Open Conspiracy".) So Cheney gets put in charge of the war games - and rules are changed so that NORAD can't act without going through Rumsfeld, and Bush is made to sit in a classroom for 7 minutes after being told about the attacks - and the financing and insuring of the WTC is set up directly by AIG and Blackstone, etc. etc. These people can't squirm out of it, they are implicated, they will defend the official story come h@ll or high water. (This is just a hypothesis mind you, but goes a long way toward explaining why there were so many clues left lying around, the put-options are another example forwarded in 'Open Complicity'.)

But the planners aren't satisfied. They want to engineer the attacks to confuse the expected citizen investigators. They will try to arrange it so the evidence is confusing, they will maybe set up traps, maybe use technologies so advanced that anyone who stumbles on to it will be easily branded a kook. Maybe they arrange for a shoot down in Pennsylvania - minus the plane, and then cover it up. Maybe they use TV fakery, or maybe they use real planes (drones actually) AND TV Fakery, or maybe they doctor footage to make it LOOK like they used TV fakery. Maybe they use TV fakery, but add some extra equipment to the bottom of the plane in some of the footage, which is nonsensical and unecessary. Maybe they refrain from faking footage of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon so that faked footage of planes hitting the WTC seem more legit, or maybe they do it simply to confuse the investigators. And maybe they are savy enough to realise that by doing these things they will create division and infighting among amateur investigators. Especially if they give a number of theories - that may be valid or may not be valid - a little push.

Is it possible that where we find infighting within the truth movement, that we are falling into traps that were built into the way the attacks were planned? Is it possible they were that smart?

I'm not sure, this is all just speculation. But even if it is plausible and they were that smart, there's a sure-fire way to short circuit their ruse ... refuse to let these issues divide us. Divide and Conquer is their motto. It's what they're using in Iraq right now to get Sunnis and Shiites to kill each other.

I really think that when there are divisions, that that is a telltale sign that people are being manipulated - even if not actively. Divide and Conquer.

2 cents.

Outstanding Sanders.

Excellent post Sanders. I want to talk about tell-tale signs of people being manipulated.

I've clearly shown that it cannot be possible for one to say that the nose of the plane is exitting the building when the two noses are different shapes and sizes. And what about the different camera views of the "nose" exitting? Did the ones that did the tv fakery say "OOPS!!! Since we accidentally made the nose go through the building, we now have to make it go through the building on those other camera angles as well!!!". For the NPT/tv fakery supporters to keep saying the plane was faked and therefore the nose exitted the building accidentally, that is a tell-tale sign of manipulation and blatant deception as i've shown it's not the same nose. This is a fact, not one's opinion of red or green (Sanders, just using your example as an example ).

For the NPT/tv fakery supporters to show two different camera angles side-by-side and then claim that one of them is faked because "the backdrop was taken out" is another tell-tale sign of manipulation and blatant deception. What part of different camera angles do they not understand? One camera angle was shot up high in the air, the other camera angle was shot lower closer to the ground. This is simple facts again, not some opinion of red or green.

For the NPT/tv fakery supporters to claim the news anchors are "reading from terrorist scripts" when they call the two plane crashes into two buildings a terrorist attack, this is yet another tell-tale sign of manipulation and blatant deception. You have two buildings each being struck by a plane. What are the news anchors supposed to think? Anyone? Let me try: "We've had a terrible accident at the WTC. It appears both towers of the WTC have been struck by airliners in an apparent aircraft accident. Something must have happend to the electronics on the aircraft, and the pilots must have been blinded by the intense sun, missing all other buildings and striking both towers of the WTC only." Yep, that makes more sense than it possibly being a terrorist attack.

Finally, the NPT/tv fakery supporters alledge that a 767 should look like a bright shiny American Airlines jet and then ask "what is this black object flying in full sunlight?. The object wasn't black, it's the dark blue paint scheme of a United Airlines jet. Also, several other times in these videos, the NPT/tv fakery supporters say that the planes change colors and therefore not the same plane. The planes never change colors. Only certain parts of the planes become highlighted by sunlight. Again more facts and not some opinions of red or green. This tops the cake in tell-tale signs of manipulation and deliberate deception.

Since i've clearly shown that these videos put out deliberately false information, what is the reasoning behind supporting it? This is a serious question that i would like answered. This is the 9/11 Truth movement, not the 9/11 fake evidence movement or the 9/11 deception movement. The main thing dividing this movement is the deliberate deception coming from videos like these.