26 August, 2007

2006 TV Fakery article on 911blogger.com

I was reviewing early articles on TV-fakery and made a comment-reply to ALBANESE where he predicted something big is going to happen. When I checked again -- that whole blog entry was GONE.

"Understanding TV fakery: a rational approach for those who can handle ...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3864#comment-158301

GONE!!!

I made a quick record before more "disappear". I saved a few blog entries, some are fun to read
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/2006-tv-fakery-article-on-911bloggercom.html


| |

Question:


Are there any out there who still think this was a real plane?



1. The area of the building between the left engine and fuselage is intact.

2. The tail section is rotated almost 90 degrees.

what a waste of a blog

what a waste of a blog entry.

you know, you should ask this every single day just to be sure everyone knows your opinion.

Just ignore them...

These NPT guys are clearly wasting our time. Don't even acknowledge them. Don't call them names, don't attack them, just ignore them. Don't waste your time because they're never going to let it go. They'd rather focus on completely pointless "evidence" rather than PNAC, or OPERATION NORTHWOODS, or the Pentagon, or bombs in towers, etc... Just ignore them and stop wasting your time. Eventually, they'll get the message.

Email: Gideon524@yahoo.com
Website: myspace.com/911thebiglie

"2. The tail section is

"2. The tail section is rotated almost 90 degrees."
No, it's not. The most visible tale section is the right wing of the tail hit by morning sun. The top part is visible too, the left side is not.

Explain these 44 other video clips from different angles:
http://www.jonhs.net/911/44_clips.htm

This one clip debunks your theory.

just because the tail looks

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

just because the tail looks normal in some videos does not mean it is in all.

You said yourself that the left part is not visible.

I notice from this video that the tail section is not rotated like I thought (I will correct my blog entry), but the left tail does seem to disappear.

Aside from that, the building is still intact between the left engine and fuselage. How is this explained?




How is this explained?

How is this explained - you ask?

why do you ask when the answer upsets you and leads you to lash out at people?

If this is an honest question - then you need to accept honest respectable answers.

My honest OPINION is that this is all the product of an organized disinformation campaign.

The planes were real. Your questions are fake.

I Concur

my brother!

Look at a proper video of

Look at a proper video of the clip:
http://www.jonhs.net/911/second_plane_hit.htm

So, for the sake of argument: if there was no plane, they first blew up the outside wall in a form of a plane and then blew up the inside of the tower and simultaneously also made an engine fly off into the street. (You can see the engine fly off better in other clips.) And then they put the a fake plane into the clip, forgot a wingpart, and then also edited hundreds of other clips confiscated from people who filmed the towers... ??

News caught the hit live as it happened... so they must have filmed the explosion, then added the fake plane into the clip, and then reported it with a delay to the public, who saw it live...or how do you explain it all?

Have you thought this all through?

for the sake of argument,

for the sake of argument, elements of that could be what happened. But the exact story need not be figured out at this time. We all agree the towers were taken down in a controlled demolition, and we don't need an answer to "how did they plant bombs without anyone seeing it?" It's a matter of simple science. (We also don't need an answer to "where are the people?" with regard to the passengers.) Can buildings collapse in that manner from anything other than a controlled demolition? Obvious answer: No. Same principle here. Can an airplane wing penetrate a building, completely disappearing into the building, and not have damaged the building?

Is this not

pretty much exactly identical to a blog you recently posted? Don't you think that's rather abusive of the whole blog system?

Could you guys be...

ANYMORE obvious?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Hmmmm...

Let's create multiple blogs, all about the same thing, because when you create a new blog, it gets put on the front page of the blog list. That way, the theory that no one cares about, and makes the movement look crazy, gets a lot of exposure, creates division within the movement, and the best part, it diverts people's attention from real activism.

What you do is the equivalent of me posting my Pakistan and 9/11 blog repeatedly. Every few days...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

LOL, the only thing "fake"

LOL, the only thing "fake" around here is CB_Brooklyn! How much are they paying you shill, enough for your soul I hope?

I see the usual suspect...

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

have gathered to attack, ridicule , divert attention but never to answer the question. I believe CB's question was: "Do you think this (plane in photo) is a real plane?". A straight forward question regarding a single frame of video. Surely such highly trained cointelpros can handle one little frame of video. Gold? Styles? Albanese? anybody?

Why analyse one single

Why analyse one single grainy, fuzzy frame made into a jpg-image by someone unknown when there tons of other material?

The image of the plane in that image looks like a real plane. to me. The area between the plane and the tower, on the other hand, is strange. But it's only a one fuzzy picture frame. The video looks completely normal.

'Like' a real plane?

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

And? The question was: is it a real plane? inside a self-repairing building? Can't you do better than "grainy, fuzzy frame...by someone unknown"? Like the CNN DVD ? And the "strange" area "between the plane and the tower" . What is that? Sure looks like the building, doesn't it? It just doesn't act like a building just hit by an airplane wing traveling at 450 mph. Those darn buildings.


Alternatively,

the people who are interested in NPT/vf could hunt down better evidence, and better images, and present that to the 911blogger public, instead of the SAME crappy-res frame, over and over and over...

Do shills get union breaks?

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

around and around they go but never to the question. Is it a real plane ? One image, one question.

Oh my god, thank you!

You have no idea what you just did. That was the first time ever anyone at 911blogger implied I was a shill. That's, like, an incredible milestone for me. Cue the Jeffersons' theme song, please. Damn, I wish I still had that bottle of champagne.

Here You Go...

Click Here
_________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Man, you rock.

...sniff...Jon...I'm touched...

Heh...

Great show.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Well rub my nose in it why don't you.

Now I'm jealous.

casseia, I agree with you

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

jonh and his 44 fakes fails

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

jonh and his 44 fakes fails to address how the wings survived the steel grated front and the nose tip which emerges in a variety of shots include the live broadcast by Foxnews. These aren't artifacts of jpg compression but physical violations of reality.

On closed minds and reality

"To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." Regarding the apparent "contradictions" with known physical reality in the image above, we must conclude that the building is real and the plane is but a CGI. For more see: WESCAM. Critical thinking- it's not just for breakfast anymore!

Where is this still from?

What video is this still from?

CNN DVD 'America Remembers' has this video.

I believe other dvd's may as well. Easy to watch frame-by-frame. There are numerous 'problems' with the alleged airplane, but pre-impact through disappearing inside the building is especially interesting. Step right up! See the self-healing buildings!

John, regarding the America Remembers DVD,

many computer DVD player software have a feature to capture an image from the screen. Software like powerDVD and WinDVD. (I was gonna post this in the other thread where had asked, but can't seen to find it right now...)

2007: This is a still from the Michael HEZARKHANI video or the CARMEN TAYLOR photograph!

MORE INFO:

http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/08/ts-ts-carmen-taylor-ua175-photo-and.html
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/08/911-conspiracy-theories-challenge.html
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/911-theodolite-battery-park-third-page.html with further links



911 Video Footage of the Planes Striking the WTC was Fake

| |

Tragedy can teach us many things. Some of the lessons we draw from September 11, 2001 are surprising.

For starters, jets flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings make no noise on impact. This is verified with two sources. If you rent the Naudet Brothers’s documentary “911”, fast-forward the tape to where the firemen investigate the gas leak. Seconds later Gedeon Naudet presumably shoots American Airlines 11 (AA 11) flying into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). We hear the sound of the plane. We hear the explosions. We hear people yelling with astonishment. However, there is no audio of the impact.

Similarly, CNN broadcast footage which shows the same anomaly. (This is said to be from an amateur shooting from the Battery; i.e., the famous shot of United Airlines 175 striking the South Tower seen from the south.) In the audio sequence we hear the sound of the jet plane arriving, the explosions and then people reacting with horror at the spectacular fireball. However, there is no impact sound.

Let the insults fly.

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

DZ ... I declare this a censorship free zone.

This comment-section will not be moderated

read it at your own risk.

--- Foul language is to be expected. ---

(There needs to be free discussion. It regularly needs to INCLUDE abuse... Abuse is one way to find out HOW SERIOUS people are. Good Abuse does NOT equal bad abuse!)

you can quote me on that, MFs

No NEED to read the article

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

I forgot to say..

Now that is cleared up.

THERE IS NO NEED TO read the above article anymore.

Move, on, nothing to see here...

ZeRRoX told us everything there is to tell.

Like, when the missing left stab re-appears, all is well.

There is NO VIDEO FAKERY if at least SOME FRAMES contain the whole image. You just need to imagine missing left stab to be in EVERY frame.

NPT fanatic

You have explanation for everything, missing frames are due to compression. Or fakery, which is more probable.

Unless you analyze original uncompressed footage you should be silent about missing frames.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

wow

The sound of "explosion" is sound of impact. This is obvious :)
Maybe, you have corrupted audio track of that video. It has a correct sound delay too.

And I´m glad you have found your missing left stab of the 2nd plane, it´s clearly seen on the picture you posted. It´s just another angle.

You have debunked yourself.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

> The sound of "explosion"

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

> The sound of "explosion" is sound of impact.

Oh wow, So there is no bang before the boom!!

Thanks for clearing that up!!

> This is obvious :)

I feel so ashamed.

> Maybe, you have corrupted audio track of that video.
> It has a correct sound delay too.

My fault.

> And I´m glad you have found your missing left stab
> of the 2nd plane, it´s clearly seen on the picture you
> posted. It´s just another angle.

Oh, how wonderful that you tell us it is another angle!!

I feel so relieved now, ... now that you, the expert, gave us the definitive word.

> You have debunked yourself.

Thanks for pointing that out. DebunKING is KING.

But you are the emperor!

Thank you.

This I call an EGO-BOOST.
Thanks again from such expert, I´m honoured.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

its not funny, u2r2h. your

its not funny, u2r2h.
your theories bear all the hallmarks of a true 'conspirac theory'. the first one that comes to mind are the thousands of agents that would have been needed to pull this off. this takes 911 back to where some people want it to be, in the conspiracy corner for crazy paranoid people.
now, i have no problem accepting other views. but, its kinda supsicious that all the no planers have something in common. they like to fight and cause arguments about the same thing over and over.
WHY?
see, i have taken the time to look at that no plain stuff that gets posted here , but, sorry, it wasn't worth it.
as someone else already pointed out, as long as you are analyzing such compressed pics, its quite simply pointless. Study the effects of image compression first.

New Theory

"no bang before the boom" this is ridiculous. I thought all the time , that it was sound of the impact.

We should call an expert, who knows how does jets flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings sound, as a judge.It shouldn´t be hard(sarcasm).
We need unbiased one(Nico is out).

------
NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".

yep it is ridiculous. Its

yep it is ridiculous. Its not as simple as u2.. looks at it.
You have to take into consideration:
- the time between the impact and the boom
- the time it takes for sound to 'travel'
- high-pass filter that probably was active during recording. (as it is very often for location recording)
- and a gazillion of other factors, we are talking about *massive air pressure* here, not hi-fi speakers playing two sounds with a few millisecs inbetween.
its not surprising at all that the sound becomes one big bang, and not an impact-boom and then a fireball-boom.

Knocking an idea without investigating = IGNORANCE

The SECOND plane video is faked. ... seriously.

You guys need to overcome the IGNORANCE STIGMA.

You even profess not reading the actual arguments.

You simply dismiss without investigation.

I can help:

Think about the logistics. How would YOU pull 911 off?

1) Without a second passenger 767 its far far easier.
2) any computer-trickery improves efficiency (less people, more targeted effect)
3) A few well-placed items will BUMSTEER everyone. The COVER UP is greatly expedited

OK, you are still NOT SOLD.

How about money.

It would be MUCH MUCH cheaper.

OK, still not.

How about visual evidence:

1) Ghost Gun
2) TV fakery
3) [Image]

Oh I forgot.. .. its all result of video copmpression.

You KNOW the mathematics of video compression and you can say this FOR A FACT... to doubt is to be deluded.

YOU DID NOT READ 1) ... you did not understand it. you did not even make a serious effort.

Marcus Icke worked on this for days and days...

and he is dumb, and you are clever.

Thats why you can dismiss it in ONE SECOND.

The american way. We all live in America ...la la lala

it´s not about ignorance

Ok, I think we can both agree, that for such analyses you NEED ORIGINAL FOOTAGE !!!

If other experts review your work and come to the same conclusion, I will say its faked. Obtain the original footage !!!

------
NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".

Get back on your meds :)

Come on, u2, what's up? No longer satisfied with getting Chris' panties in a bunch, you've decided to try to rile the general population of blogger? Are you that bored? I say this because you've posted two entries in the last couple of days that are about as inflammatory to the discursive environment here as it is possible to get.

A lot of us -- myself certainly included -- have investigated the claims of "tv fakery." For me, it was about two things: curiosity, and not wanting to be a hypocrite by dismissing something out of hand. I am not convinced. I am not even convinced it is an avenue worthy of time and effort on the part of researchers, let alone worthy of continual prominence on page one of the "tracker" feature. When the Scholars' group publishes the promised peer-reviewed papers, I will certainly read them. In the meanwhile, when it comes to weighing first person accounts such as John Albanese's against the very crappy res videos continually put forth, I'm going with testimony.

Premiere:

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

LOL! that is the most

LOL! that is the most ridiculous 'no-plain-proof video' ive seen so far. That looped statement , oh my god. talking about brainwashing. And the music at the end is just , well, ridiculous.And that image-overlaying ..##?? And yea i know, the music is not important, but its the only thing in there worth writing about, cause its at least kinda funny.

Applause! Yet again, this

Applause!

Yet again, this mirrors entirely a post I made on another site about the audio.

Really guys c'mon, the KISS principle is writ large over this.

What would have happened if the "plane" had missed it's intended target, hit a heavily populated area?? No we can't have that!!

Impossible manoevers at incredible speeds by an untrained pilot. That would never fly!!

What if the "hijack" didnt go as as planned, if the passengers had regained control?? Couldnt have that!!

What if the "crash" didnt go as planned, what if the hijackers and passengers had survived the crash into the building? Not beyond impossibility!! Couldnt have that?

What if the pilot got lost and flew around for hours looking for the target with NO intercept?? That would look dodgy. It already looks dodgy.

And how would they find the New York from 35,000 ft? Did they just look out the cockpit windopw and there it was?

The "plane scenario" has too many "hows" and "what if's" ? There were too many things that could go wrong.

And we all know that the BTS says the flights didnt take off.
We know that the passenger lists are fake, and that the FAA say that the UA planes are still flying and the AA planes were'nt AA planes.

How much more do you need?

Hey how about we load the towers with explosives? A couple of fake planes for the TV, we have some at the Pentagon from a war games scenario. We could have some smoke and mirrors at the Pentagon also, a drill maybe? And we need some heroes - passengers regain control and take the plane down in Redneckville, Penn. We have a good hole in a field out there we could use!

Do you think the goons will buy it?

We have to try or we are f*cked. Remember the inauguration parade?? The stolen election?? That war we are supposed to start??

well, theres a "simple"

well, theres a "simple" solution for all the problems with planes that you list. And that is remote controlled planes. For sure simpler than 'tv fakery'. And it doesnt require 2999 agents across the media, not to mention all the eye witnesses.

Remote control planes are

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Remote control planes are extremely hard to fly. Even harder to fly at low altitude in a city full of skyscrapers.

The media are bent.

Hey, they went along with the Kennedy asassination bullshit, my blind grandmother could see the frame up!!

Just to remind you what an airplane actually looks like.

It could be fake - what is the problem?

Yes. The plane looks fake to me. Who knows?

Whatever your perception is as to what hit or didn't hit the Towers, it's not important right now.

What is important is to awaken others to the betrayal and ruthlessness of these individuals who instigated this attack on their own nation.

Please don't get caught up in the details of what exactly happened at this point. Sure, its important, but that should not be our priority right now.

The issue we need to keep focused upon is is not HOW they did it, its WHO did it.

We know that this Administration was closely involved, primarily by their continuing to lie, block investigations, stack committees with their buddies to block investigations and in essence do whatever they can to stop the facts and the truth from being revealed.

What I believe is important is ENGAGING OTHERS. We need to inspire conversation, create interest again and talk to others about what really happened and how it affects all of us, and why its important for them to get involved in what their government is doing to them.

We need to continue to awaken and arouse interest in this subject. about the governmental/White House lying to American citizens and instigating/allowing the murder of over 3,000 citizens to take place and to blame the attack on the Muslim community so this Administration and Military Industrial Complex can go on a killing spree in the Middle East.

A grotesque, evil plan that has blamed innocent people and incarcerated hundreds more for something this Administration was involved in.

That is what is important at this time.

If the planes were faked. Fine. We'll get to that. LATER.

I told you before, i tell you again!!

TV fakery is THE ONE issue that will start the revolution.

Joe Sixpack can relate to it!!

We will win if tv fakery is pushed into the mainstream.

think of it this way:

What is essential to the war on terror?

Mind fuck!! the only thing that they cannot do without
is perception management.

For those who need more proof of TV fakery:

here the reminder:

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ggua1...

Of course, if you don't care to read, much less understand...
this will not be proof to you... but others, who DO READ.

Craig the NYPD who spoke sunday the 10th

Yeah, he said he saw a person squashed by an engine, and this guy is dying from pulmonary fibrosis from the toxic dust down there. So I'd have to say he's right, and you are a fool.

P.S. Remote controls WOULD be more feasible

How stupid can you be seriously?

Do you think by remote control he mean the chimp with a remote control?

Try laser guided GPS, again way more likely a cenario than the TV fakery.

I'm going to frame the same question I did to nico and everyone else who obsesses over this nominal area of 911.

EVEN if it's true, how effective would this area of research be in waking up the general population?

Do you think in the average american's mind it will hurt or help our case?

If you can't answer

It won't

and

hurt

you are mentally retarded, or have forgotten just how far corroded americans reality lines are from actual reality.

PLEASE show this one WIDELY

PLEASE show this one WIDELY *before* the 7nov06 'elections' ..
http://torrentspy.com/torrent/877621/American_Blackout_Disenfranchisemen...


Understanding TV fakery: grainy images

| |

Perhaps you have seen the images such as this one- http://www.911blogger.com/node/3778
-showing the back half of an airplane sticking out of a building while the area between the fuselage and the left wing appears undamaged.. These are not photographs of course, but single frames from videos broadcast on 911 by major networks and included in DVDs sold by the networks after 911. Many concerned researches have been unwilling to accept the authenticity of these images, believing the network videos contain CGI insert to simulate a plane crashing into a building which then explodes. Others have complained that the images are “grainy” or “fuzzy”, without addressing the content of the images.

While it is true that these videos, even the DVD versions, would not help you show off your new hi-def television, these descriptions suggest a desire to disregard the content of the image based upon its quality. Yet, any researcher who sees apparent anomalies in a grainy image need only locate the DVD image to find out if these anomalies are also present in the higher resolution version of the same image.

All of the relevant anomalies shown in the lower resolution images of the plane entering the building are present in the DVD version of the same images. Any disagreement should therefore be based on the content of the images and whether or not the events depicted comply with the laws of physics. An examination of the images presented online and taken from the CNN documentary DVD “America Remembers”, shows the tail of a plane which has entered a building with the building remaining undamaged between the fuselage and the left engine. The event depicted in the image is not physically possible. This image and many others depicting physically impossible events were broadcast by CNN and other major networks on 911. Why? To create the belief that a hijacked passenger jet crashed in to WTC2 when, in fact, it did not. I invite you to investigate this important issue for yourself. The images may be grainy, but the evidence is clear.



You worded this piece so

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

You worded this piece so cleverly to avoid getting banned, eh?

> Any disagreement should therefore be based on the content of the images
> and whether or not the events depicted comply with the laws of physics

haha, non sequitur!

The argument that VIDEO compression artefacts are responsible for the
smooth facade (not showing impact damage) is still usable.
And I believe this is precisely the planehuggers are using.

But, psst, if we continue to talk about it here we get you banned, too...
and I can never get unbanned, if this was an option, ever.

So, lets talk quietly... no boldface, understand!

> The images may be grainy, but the evidence is clear.

I agree, actually. Because the nature of video-compression is
to spend extraordinary amount of data on faithfully reproducing something
that the eye could see... and only reduce detail where there is nothing to see,
or replace with prefab patterns. In my blog there is killtown's (?) yellow-arrow
photo/video-still .. and IMHO impact damage should be visible, video compression
or not. From experience, the DVD (mpeg) video compression is good enough.
But of course the video-compression or other manipulation that was applied
before CNN printed the DVDs is the crunch. It is certain that some manipulation
took place, if only to convert to DVD. So, if the same people that did the original
convertion/manipulation released this obviously physically impossible footage they
either passed on a pre-manipulated imagery or ruined the image-quality beyond
belief.

You worded this piece so

You worded this piece so cleverly to avoid getting banned, eh?

But, psst, if we continue to talk about it here we get you banned, too...
and I can never get unbanned, if this was an option, ever.

please stop with your suggestions that you were banned because of discussing any given topic, there are tons of blog entries on this subject.

you were banned for your actions, and that is explained here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3929

likewise, if you want to be unbanned email me (as is explained in the rules), otherwise don't expect to be.

Please clarify one rule, please

Thank you for this blog, dz.

You have one rule that is hard for me to apply to myself in trying to avoid violations:

"Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread"

I sometimes find myself responding by bringing up things the person said on another thread. Is this not allowed? I assume you don't want personal attacks being carried across threads (or being made at all), but sometimes I respond to personal attacks by bringing up things a person said elsewhere. And substantive arguments also sometimes require reference to another thread.

Could you please clarify what you mean? The rule is a bit vague, at least for me. Thank you.

assessing the argument's validity

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

"The argument that VIDEO compression artifacts are responsible for the smooth facade (not showing impact damage) is still usable."

Any argument is "usable". The question the researcher must ask is: Is the argument valid?

The evidence is visible, even in relatively low-res images. The evidence is confirmed in the high-res (DVD)versions of the same images. I am unaware of any logical explanation, except CGI inserts, which accounts for the physically impossible events depicted in the images. Video compression does not account for the lack of visible damage on the building where a fuel-filled airplane wing, travelling at around 500mph, is alleged to have just impacted the building. Video compression cannot, in any way, account for the complete lack of deceleration as the 'plane' impacts and 'vanishes' into the building.

http://911blogger.com/node/3881

I think we are allowed

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

to talk about the subject here.. as long as we keep in quiet.

You will not be able to convince ... unless you can make it clear that video-compression does not smother the real-world impact damage.

Although surface of the building looks smooth (despite windows) -- a gash *would* show up.

Compression smoothes regular features, but enhances irregular shapes.

In other words.. tell people how video compression works and make a quantitative study and show it is impossible that video compression is happening here... and then

TAADAAA

people will HAVE TO believe you.

But they won\'t.

Its like saying:

USA is the greatest purveyor of violence...
and in the next sentence everyone says:
But muslims are the terrorists and we give generous foreign aid.

The fact that world-wide millions have and hundred-thousands still die because of USA actions cannot be accepted... however true.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair

Ho hum ... it is like 911 always was.

First you wonder, then you find the evidence and you are exited. You get the word out and everyone thinks you are a nutter. Then you find more and more evidence and as DRG says, the cumulative evidence counts, too. Eventually everyone recognises it.

The Noplane debate however is now poisoned.

Which is a shame, because IMHO it is the hottest thing, ever.

Think! Telling the world that they manipulate the \\\\\\\'reality\\\\\\\' by video.. my goddess, this is blasphemy of the first order. This This This ah ah would would mean that much of what we are shown on TV is faked?

Yes my son.

If I mention the fact that NoPlane is sooo much easier to execute... people will accuse me of simplefying it because *I wish* it to be true... just so that I can call myself the queen of debunkers. Yeah, whatever..

Yes,

The Noplane debate however is now poisoned.

Basically the 911 truthlings want to protect their children from the noplane porn.

If however expert/luminary 911truthers would embrace the fact that videomanipulation was done... It would force the issue... they just do not want to go there..

BTW -- same people accuse Chomsky of a very similar crime.

"Because the nature of

"Because the nature of video-compression is
to spend extraordinary amount of data on faithfully reproducing something
that the eye could see... and only reduce detail where there is nothing to see,"

Hm, you havent exactly increased the credibilty of your overall post with that statement. I would suggest to overwork that one again. Cause, frankly,it is wrong.
What you state is the goal of video compression , that is correct. But if you study the effects it has, you can clearly see this statement does not hold up.
Its not quite that simple as you put it. Compression of images works far from ideal, at this point in time.
Now, im not saying your whole np theory is either right or wrong, or that video compression can be used to explain all anomalies. But even if everythin else you say is right, i'd suggest to correct that one. Cause you loose readers, you know.

Quarantine.

I suggest we quarantine this. Shhhhh.

All of the relevant

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

All of the relevant anomalies shown in the lower resolution images of the plane entering the building are present in the DVD version of the same images

of course they are. that is why some of us are so outspoken about the obviousness of 9/11 tv fakery. maybe an actual plane hit the wtc2 and maybe not but even if so it couldn't have been what we saw on tv.
so before anyone throws up the old "thousands of eyewitnesses" line i will post just a few testimonies:

""I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane,....""

""sure enough there it was, another plane. The plane wasn't no er... airliner or anything, it was a twin engine, big grey plane...""

""it definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides and definitely was very low... it was not a normal flight that I've ever seen at an airport...""

""...we saw the, this blue and red plane coming by and er... smash into the, er... south tower.."".

""as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the centre, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not""

""watched him turn and crash right into the south tower. I said thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was military plane like transport or small cargo military.""

""...so many people saw it. They actually described the plane as it came in. They said it was a military-type plane and it was green and it was this. I mean, I never saw the color of the plane.""

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/#Witness

do any of these officially recorded testimonies coincide with what was presented to us by the mcmedia?

not.

witnesses and doublethnk

James, thanks for the ' witness' accounts. As I discussed in my earlier post http://911blogger.com/node/3864, many seem quite willing to dismiss witness accounts which claim flight 77 hit the pentagon, yet cling to similar accounts regarding WTC 1&2 in a illogical (though psychologically understandable) attempt to deny what their eyes can plainly see. They fight the internal, private battle between the physical, instinctive desire to seek safety and comfort in the herd and the mind's desire for logic and reason. Let us hope that continued appeals for individuals to investigate this issue by themselves and for themselves will lead to a more widespread understanding of tv fakery and its use in creating the myths of 911.

people do not read.

An excellent article.

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Thanks u2. Your continued efforts despite your (temporary?) exile, are appreciated.

http://www.positiontoknow.com

http://911logic.blogspot.com/

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

http://911logic.blogspot.com/
9/11 WNYW FOX5 Blooper - "Jim Friedl": Eyewitness or Member of the TV Fakery WESCAM Crew?

would someone be kind enough

would someone be kind enough to post hi-res captures from the DVD?

DVD image capture

CB - I have the CNN DVD (and others) but lack the know-how and/or software to capture the images. If you could share instructions on how-to or suggest software, I would be glad to capture and post the images. As you probably know (and I mentioned in this post), even the DVD images are less than 'hi-def'.
Thanks.

here's free software to rip

here's free software to rip a DVD to hard drive, but don't know about capturing (although I could try to find out).

Thanks, CB

I'll rip it and see what I can do.
also, check out:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html

the "script"- even more absurd without the visual distractions of the video. Jeanne Yurman- the original no-planer?

Capturing?

To capture a frame just hit the button to take a screen shot, off the computer, and then save? That's what I would do. Then edit it to .jpg, as needed, with photoshop?

Dear John Gault,

Is John Gault your real name?

If so, can you prove it?

Have you ever worked in any capacity for the US government?

I fully admit that my name is not actually John Doraemi, and I have no intention of telling you what it is. On the other hand, I'm not spreading grossly ridiculous disinformation that benefits the perps. I prefer to stick to the facts that they don't particularly want talked about.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Sunday, August 26, 2007

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites