TV Fakery - A debate on evidence + analysis

*Note: I believe there were planes. I am asking for a civilized discussion on the evidence presented by tv-fakery. Thanks to anyone who actually read this before posting, and I thank people like peggy for bringing up civiilzed point of debate on the evidence.

After reading CB's blog and the comments in it, I wanted to discuss my views on the point of TV fakery proponents, and the effect that their arguments have on Truthers, and on Non-Truthers.

*Note: I have no objections to differring viewpoints. TV-Fakery advocates have as much a right to speak their thoughts, and discuss their ideas, as any other Truther does. The point of this blog is for a honest and intellectual debate on the ideas, and effects of these ideas. This is only a few opinions on a few pieces of evidence. PLEASE debate and show more evidence, this is something that needs to be figured out, and decided upon by the Truth community. I DO NOT think that TV-Fakery advocates are against the movement, or spies, or crap like that. They saw all the same inconsistancies that WE saw, and tried to piece together the puzzle, and ended up taking a DIFFERENT PATH than others did. They have the same questions we have, HOW AND WHY 911 HAPPENED, we need to help each other figure out the truth, not call names...

When I view the body of evidence provided by websites supporting CGI, there are a few GOOD points made.

1.) Video's show the plane going into the building with little to no resistance.

2.) Different videos show a different angle of the plane coming at the WTC.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One quick point about the arguments of witnesses:

There are many other points made to promote CGI, including eyewitnesses that didn't hear the plane, or lack of debris, etc. I personally will argue against some of this supporting evidence later, or in comments.

Jon Albanese saw 1 of the planes, how can you say that he is wrong, and has to PROVE he saw it, and you do NOT have to prove that he DIDN'T see it, that isn't a debate, it's a childish argument...

If there is proof that jon was not where he said he was that day, then you have an argument, otherwise, someone who wasn't there is saying that the person who was there didn't see what he thought he saw, THAT WILL NEVER HOLD UP IN COURT OR PUBLIC OPINION!

There are a lot of idea's and evidence that I probably haven't seen, or thought about, this is what this debate is for, please provide as much debateable information as possible!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Points I would like to make:

On the enterance of the plane into the building:

a plane moving at 500+ mph can and would enter the WTC, however, the smoothness and ease that the plane entered in strange.

If the CGI advocates say no plane hit the building, then explosives must have made the airplane shaped hole in the WTC's.

Why is it not possible then, to have an explosive rigged to blow out the wall as the real-plane is actually hitting the building?

I believe that the planes were flown by autopilot, the hijackers probably did take over the plane, but I doubt they flew the planes themselves. Why couldn't you already know the location of the impact, if the autopilot is programmed to hit there?

This would explain how the plane entered easily, the walls were destroyed as the plane hit, this would explain the flash that is seen as the nose of the plane comes in contact with the building.

No pods, ok, but then, why not have the explosive used to penetrate the wall, the explosive is in the wall of the building!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My other point is, when there are videos proving fakery. Nico has already done all the work needed to show how easy it is to manipulate video to make a plane dissapear, or change color, etc. The evidence shown has to be evaluated for the possibility of manipulation.

I do think the overlay video is interesting, and unexpected, but once again, the source and validity of these video's needs to be proven as accurate and accountable. You cannot say, "here's my video, prove it wrong", the world, debates, and criminal system does not work like that, so we should not either. IT IS UP TO US TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF OUR OWN CLAIMS!!!!!!!! It is very possible that this video has 1 REAL clip, and another than has the same position of the towers, but edits the incoming plane from another video of another perspective. The sky was a bluescreen, and it is easy to manipulate on internet videos.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proof that shows CGI, using the amature video, is definatly not admissable for a few reasons. When video is poor quality, grainy and pixelated, you will have effects that seems impossible, like the dissapearing wing, this is the same effect if you begin messing with the resolution of an image, objects are blurred together, and sometimes blead into another. comparing the video analysis of a fuzzy picture, against a perfect photograph of a plane, is clearly not logical, the poor quality image will have MUCH less data, and show many inconsistancies.


I have an idea for these analysts of images and video to try out.

Try doing the same analysis of the WTC from the same fuzzy + grainy video of the plane.

Then compare it to a high resolution, digital quality image of the WTC building.

All this comparison shows is how poor quality images have less data then high res photo's....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I repeat:
This is only a few opinions on a few pieces of evidence. PLEASE debate and show more evidence, this is something that needs to be figured out, and decided upon by the Truth community. I DO NOT think that TV-Fakery advocates are against the movement, or spies, or crap like that. They saw all the same inconsistancies that WE saw, and tried to piece together the puzzle, and ended up taking a DIFFERENT PATH than others did. They have the same questions we have, HOW AND WHY 911 HAPPENED, we need to help each other figure out the truth, not call names...

Not again, we've had this

Not again, we've had this already, I'm definitely not getting involved.

Why again?

The reason I brought this up in this manner, is because I have only seen 2 types of discussions about these conflicting viewpoints.

1.) Fakery post, everyone yells at them

2.) Planes exists post, TK Fakery yells at them

Nobody actually conducts a normal debate about the evidence used in these discussions.

I would like to think the people on this site are mature enough to compose an actual debate about evidence, and not just scream like kids...

I doubt anyone cares to debate this

This line of research is dead as a doornail. It has thoroughly been debunked.

At this point it appears to only serve as disinformation to poison the well.

You are ostensibly asking me to disregard my own eye-witness account (LOL), in favor of grainy video footage that really proves nothing scientific at all.

It is a poison pill. It is silly nonsense positioned here to drive away traffic and create dissention in the ranks.

no planes? what could possibly be more absurd?

you can post all the "hrmmpf hrmmpf - lets have a serious debate" posts you want to - but, it is transparent what this research represents to this movement.

there is considerable evidence to support controlled demolition - yet, it is STILL the one thing the media uses to discredit us because it APPEARS like a silly theory.

and you suggest we debate no planes????!!!!

i think this movement once and for all needs to expose and discredit the obvious disinformation provacatours of the movement. we do not have time for this shit.

i suggest that NO ONE POST RESPONSES TO THIS GARBAGE.

"...suggest that NO ONE POST

"...suggest that NO ONE POST RESPONSES TO THIS GARBAGE..."

Good idea. Why don't you start first, since there is no reasonable debate possible *here*?
I am happy to avoid your hangout blogs as well - ;)

John saw the airplane

And John saw the airplane, saw it pass by and with all his co-workers, saw it hit the North Tower.

But he will not share the location of his office or an any more elaborate or detailed exposition.

He's not answering any questions about it. Such as: "What did the plane look like?"

He also says he saw the airplane hit the South Tower, "albeit from a long distance. "

I wonder why the South Tower was that much farther away than the North? I wonder in what postion would be an office building to be able to see both "hits"

Hmmm?

We're researchers and we really want to know. We need to know. But somehow the information is proprietary, top secret, personal, not important or too obvious?

I always want to find out if I'm wrong. But how can I trust John Albenese's story when he says he was positioned to see *both* hits.

If I'm wrong John, please help me out with this.

:)

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

did you ask him via email

did you ask him via email before questioning his credibility in public?

also, it should be noted that John was the creator of 'Everybodys Gotta Learn Sometime', and that Mike Berger of 911truth (director of 'improbable collapse') also saw the plane while walking his dog that morning.

so, add to the list of things you have to believe in in order to believe in the NPT:

  • Every piece of video footage filmed either professionally or by an amateur of the first and second impacts was modified to implant CGI renderings (and in some cases audio)
  • Noone with a video camera was able to capture film of either impact showing no plane hitting the towers
  • Every photo of the 2nd plane prior to impact by either professionals or amateurs was modified to implant CGI renderings
  • Every first hand eye-witness who claims to have seen the first or second impacts is either a plant, a liar, or suffering from a mental issue that makes them think they saw a plane
  • Every first hand ear-witness who claims to have heard the roar of a plane overhead is either a plant, a liar, suffering from a mental issue, or something else emitted such sounds
  • Every photo of plane debris from NYC is planted or fake
  • Government officials were able to plant engines weighing multiple tons (as well as other debris) into the middle of NYC quickly enough to not be noticed
  • Everyone who didn't see the plane that morning has been silenced, and that is why they are not out advocating the NPT
  • Shape charges that could blow things inward instead of outward were installed in the buildings to create damage that appeared to be from planes without anyone noticing
  • The creators of 'Improbable Collapse' and 'Everybodys Gotta Learn Sometime' are both liars when they state that they saw the first plane, and perhaps created their films to try to gain credibility to go behind their bogus eye witness statements

again, I am more than willing to look at any links and such, but questioning someone else publicly is a sort of intimidation tactic isnt it? why not email him privately and see if he can tell you?

great post.

The only way that 911 was able to be pulled off, and not have anyone inside the job come out, is if there were only a handful of people who pulled the strings.

Look at this situation from the planners view.

You want to pull this off, and you really need to be incredibly careful about who is involved, and who knows.

to pull off TV fakery would invlove many many many more people, in all area's of life.

What would the benefit of this RISK be? Not having to worry about the planes.... That's the only benefit.

Getting the planes to do what they did, is EASIER than pulling off tv-fakery, involves LESS people.

These are not stupid people that pulled off 911, they wouldn't bestupid enough to go through all the trouble of TV fakery, when all they needed was the inside access to the planes, that is what Securacom/Stratesec is for!

Basically because he called me a "retarded child"

Is it O.K. for John to call me a "retarded child" and make fun of me in public but not O.K. to ask him, once again, for details about what he saw.

We are researchers here. We are students of 9/11. Isn't it fair of me to ask him what is his story? He used his story to buttress his argument against me. Isn't it fair for me to ask him to explain himself?

Why is this embarrassing?

Why would anyone consider this an embarrassment?

He never questioned me about my point of view. He just called me retarded and said only an idiot could think and see as I did.. And when he brought up objections I answered them.

But he doesn't have to answer any questions? Is he a god or something?

I saw his film. I'm quite aware of it. And I'm aware of the film by Michael Berger too. If Michael Berger saw the "plane" hit the South Tower I would love to hear the details of that from him as well. Where was he walking his dog that day?

* Every piece of video footage filmed either professionally or by an amateur of the first and second impacts was modified to implant CGI renderings (and in some cases audio)

There is only one known video of the first impact - that I know of. That would be the Naudet Bros. There may be one other that surfaced recently - 5 years later, but I will have to re-check.

* Noone with a video camera was able to capture film of either impact showing no plane hitting the towers

This is not true. There are several amateur clips which do not show an airplane, but show an explosion. And many many clips which do not show the impact but show the "airplane" disappear behind the building...then "boom."

* Every photo of the 2nd plane prior to impact by either professionals or amateurs was modified to implant CGI renderings

As far as I know most of the still "photos" were taken from video renderings.

* Every first hand eye-witness who claims to have seen the first or second impacts is either a plant, a liar, or suffering from a mental issue that makes them think they saw a plane

Not many claim to have seen the first impact. I have one friend who did claim that, but when questioned closely had to admit he did not clearly watch the impact of the "airplane" on the building. I truly believe he saw an airplane go down Broadway. I think it was the decoy. Or one of them.

I've yet to meet someone that will stick to their story of seeing the exact impact once questioned closely. Which is surprising. I know.

There are some who make the claim on video, which I have watched - who of course I haven't yet been able to track down and question directly, but who definitely appear to me to be actors.

* Every first hand ear-witness who claims to have heard the roar of a plane overhead is either a plant, a liar, suffering from a mental issue, or something else emitted such sounds.

No. As I said I believe there were decoy airplanes.

No. I believe the first impact was preceded by a missle-like sound. My doctor who lives near there heard it go over his building from the East. A criminal trial laywer who I know also hear/felt something from the East that morning. But he had no sense of the exact timing.

Many people saw planes go overhead close to the ground or otherwise. I believe these may have been decoy planes. One such airplane, a large white airplane, was caught on serveral videos clips of that morning. Even Diane Sawyer commented upon it. Since the airspace around the Towers is restricted, even in the best of times, that "white elephant" airplane was an anomaly.

* Every photo of plane debris from NYC is planted or fake

The photos are not fake. They are real photos ;)

But the airplane debris was planted. Just as it was at the Pentagon.

* Government officials were able to plant engines weighing multiple tons (as well as other debris) into the middle of NYC quickly enough to not be noticed.

Probably the same people who obviously planted the bombs.

Also the stuff that was planted wasn't that big.

They also planted the Passport.

* Everyone who didn't see the plane that morning has been silenced, and that is why they are not out advocating the NPT

Actually , if you *did not* see an airplane you could just believe you missed it.

("It's hard to "prove a negative.")

You may think that it just came by too fast. Which is logical.

If you read the collection of 1st person testimony by people who did not see a airplane, you will see many examples of people who said they did not see an airplane, and who just saw an explosion, but whose convictions/perceptions were overrun by those who knew better.

* Shape charges that could blow things inward instead of outward were installed in the buildings to create damage that appeared to be from planes without anyone noticing

With 7$ Trillion+ of off the budget money for Defence, at the very least...off the books and missing. ...And with so much money and research into Defense and secret weaponry, I really can't say that what you are describing is impossible.

I'm sure the boys who bought, paid and promote exotic weaponry love to have a chance to test it all out. Remember 9/11/01 was a date for many elaborate terror drills and possibly "war games."

It's basically the same question of how explosives were planted at all. if they were planted to take down the whole building - as it is logical that they were, then it's not really a stretch to believe planted specialized explosives, either on the outside or inside, did the job.

* The creators of 'Improbable Collapse' and 'Everybodys Gotta Learn Sometime' are both liars when they state that they saw the first plane, and perhaps created their films to try to gain credibility to go behind their bogus eye witness statements.

I haven't spoken to Mike Berger about this. There is nothing I like so much as to be proved wrong. So I would love to speak with him about his experience while walking his dog. Since I haven't spoken with him, I don't even know if he actually saw the airplane hit or people are just saying he saw it.

As far as John Albanese, I know he made a very important movie. I also know that he particularly devised the movie to be an introduction to people who were not initially favorable to the findings of 9/11 Truth. So he's very sensitive to the public and what people think.

The story he told today on this site: that he and his co-workers were able to see both hits from their window at work - I find unbelievable. Maybe he thinks he saw that. So I won't call him a liar.

However, I've thought about this a lot and there isn't that many places where one could see both impacts and both airplanes. That's because one "airplane" supposedly came in from the North and hit the North face of the North Tower and the other supposedly came in from the South and hit the south face of the South Tower. I'm not saying that such a location doesn't exist. I'd just like to know where it does exist, if there is such a place. I would love to find more people who worked there and speak with them.

It doesn't really matter to this issue what film he has worked on and produced. I commend him for his work and actually liked him until he was so rude to call me retarded.

Unfortunately his story, as he related it, does not hold up. I asked for clarification and didn't get it.

Remember, seeing an airplane fly by is not the same as seeing that airplne impact. If John says he saw that, I'd really like to hear about it from him in more detail. He will be the first person I know who saw that.

He says that the fact I don't know anyone who did is unbelievable and crazy - but I beg to differ.

So did my friend D. think that, who is downtown and has lived there for 20 years and who knows everyone in the neighborhood. Until he actually started asking around in the neighborhood he thought it was a ridiculous question too. He did it as a favor to me and as a lark, to ask around. Then he came back to me and said, "You know I'd never have believed it. But the question you asked me to ask around about?! Everyone is coming back and saying it is a great question. They are stunned. Because no one knows anyone who actually saw the hit."

I think it's simply an assumption that "everyone" saw it. Or thousands saw it. Everyone saw it on T.V. is the truth.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

thanks for the detailed and

thanks for the detailed and level-headed response Peggy, best wishes.

um... did you read this?

My opinions are that the TV-Fakery advocates are wrong.

I am disagreeing with their evidence, and asking them to back it up with something that could be allowed in court.

I'm in agreement with you Jon Albanese... I even quote you as an example of why I think they are wrong...

Maybe you should have read the article before posting a nasty message assuming im a no-planer.

I think that there are people who believe in no-planes, based on the evidence that was presented to them by people like Nico.

No-planers don't exist

I have yet to see proof that any actual "no-planers" exist, outside of the Reynolds-Haupt disinfo ring.

but that's changing

People are beginning to believe it, mostly because of Reynolds + Haupt. That is why there should be a civilized discussion about it.

You need to be inclusive, so that if people are mistaken in their beliefes, they can debate it, and mabye change their minds.

If everyone is agressive to people who are not in step with the movement, then how do you expect to get those same people to help us fight those responsible?

I haven't seen any evidence of that

...at all. None whatsoever. I take your point though, hypothetical as it may be. You do as you see fit and so will I; as far as I'm concerned, it would be highly irresponsible for me not to express my view on this matter, clearly and often.

I agree

The point is hypothetical.

But as we know, Reynolds is getting published, speaking seminars, and getting interviewed on FOX news.

Some people are going to honestly believe what he says, so I think that should be addressed in the best way possible.

Please contribute any better idea's on how to respond to Reynolds + Haupt, and those that may agree with him.

They have the SAME end goal as the rest of the 911Truth community.

Who?

"They have the SAME end goal as the rest of the 911Truth community."

Who are you talking about? I think you're better off sticking with your premise of debunking NPT, once you start vouching for the integrity of those pushing it you're on much shakier ground.

no no no.

Not the integrity of those push.

The integrity of independent people who believe what reynolds + Haupt say.

People who believe that it was an inside job, but were convinced differently than we were.

Some people are going to come to the wrong conclusions. That is why COINTELPRO works, if you can get enough garbage out there, some people will believe it.

I don't think we can accurately assume every person that states the no-planes viewpoint, does not believe what they are saying.

That is what the conservative americans who know nothing of 911truth will think about us. They are just liberal nuts who hate bush.

I think we need to show the same respect to them as we expect from those who doubt us. Then we can try and show each other what we believe, and what we should be trying to do with this ever growing movement.

Not screaming "your a spy" at them as soon as they arrive to the discussion.

I'm not saying that there are, or aren't no-planers + COINTELPRO, etc, etc.

All I'm saying is that there might be some people that are real truthful, and as misguided as you or I might have been at one point. Then we learn more, and change our minds.

Hell, I'm sure there are people that think that 911 is all because of Isreal, or that it's all because of Oil, or that It's all because of drugs.

We don't know enough to know the truth, so all we can do is help people get the best information available.

That's all I want to do for someone else that might be in that boat.

Cool

Thanks for the clarification.

Updated version

Thank you for your sane and humane approach to the subject.

Heaven forbid we should talk about something people will laugh at!

Baa!

This is the updated version of the video overlay that overlays more precisely:

What you say about the resolutions being different depending on the quality of the digital image: I understand that when people blew up some of these images, everything shows up in higher detail except for the "plane," which is because it is an insert.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

I think that a plane moving

I think that a plane moving at over 500 mph is not going to be as clear as the stationary buildings.

Even with high quality video, the interlaced frames will make a moving object appear with less detail, than the stationary objects.

Since these video's are mostly low quality, you would expect that the fast moving target, in a still frame, will appear with much less detail than the stationary building.

Does this seem incorrect to you?

Yes, it seems correct.

There are also issues of the "plane" "hippity-hopping" or jumping. But I haven't done the hands-on analysis of these instances and have only been studying the clips for the last few weeks, so I'm not in a position to comment in detail on this aspect. Just that people who are much more "into" this than myself, or at least at it for a much longer time, say that exists.

I found, looking up the top speed for a Boeing 767 airliner, this page: Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
which is from an engineering publication, "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics." It states the Boeing 767 would not be able to penetrate an exterior steel column if the column was greater than 22 mm thick. 22m is less than an inch. The columns are reputed to have been 4" thick, although the only official blueprints of the Trade Towers supposedly were lost with the buildings. Convenient that.

Also the journal states: "The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s." Well, since the top speed of a Boeing is reputedly (according to the debunking site I glanced at) 540 mph, that means the "airplane" never reached the speed necessary to breech the steel columns.

That's because 130 m/s = 7,800 miles per hour.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

If John Albanese is such a

If John Albanese is such a 'valuable' witness, he can possibly also tell us from which direction that "plane" really came from.

I would be happy to hear an explanation for all of us of the discrepancies of the following 4screen shots of the second hit, where the aircraft silhouette is always coming from a straight right linear angle, no matter how the camera POV for the Towers is.




Sources:
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
(Server currently attacked)
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/2nd-hit.html (Mirror)

um, not really...

Actually, they don't show that at all...

The first pic has the 1st tower to the left, and the plane is coming straight in.

The second pic has the first and second towers lined up, and shows the plane coming at an angle, definatly NOT straight like the first pic.

The third pic has the viewer in a position in between the first 2 pics, and the plane is at an agnle in between the first 2 pics.

You can tell the planes angle by the angle of the wing. It is CLEARLY no the same in these pics...

It's fascinating how "janus"

It's fascinating how "janus" does see that from screenshots :)

I have the videos. and i have them also in original DiVX Top Quality, which doesn't change anything from the evidence.
The landscapes are much clearer though, the aircraft silhouette still the same grey-blurrish blurbs.

Also, your argument about speed is even a red herring for our own fakery evidence.

The footage contradicts in incoming speed *heavily*, but devil's advocate of media could spin they "rolled" it different, that's why i also didn't touch that point yet.

Ironically in this comparison also the official story contradict each other what *incoming speed" depends.

And i don't see anything from what you're talking about.
The angle of the aircraft, which has nothing to do with the flight path (!) just showed that they used different flat graphic CGIs, which was already proven many months ago here:
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGI/CGI_aprilfools.html

Quality Section 2

Quality Section 3

Quality Section 4

Why did you open this thread anwyay?
I prefer to follow some smarter guys here:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3018
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3018?page=1

What else to expect from someone named "Janus", which is symbolically standing for a two-faced god of gates?!
We had these attempts of anti-fakery blogs here before.

They just help us to refine the argument. Instead of spamming anti-topic blogs, why don't you just show up at the "research evidence" blogs?

Can I download them?

"I have the videos. and i have them also in original DiVX Top Quality, which doesn't change anything from the evidence."

I would like to see these. Are they available for download somewhere?

We all collected them over

We all collected them over the last years from many different sources and always promoted the links.
Noone cared and i'm sure you also just wanna kill time.
Your aversion technique is proof of that.

The argument that tons of technicians must have been involved, is nonsense.
Graphic aircraft silhouettes are available since decades.

Everyone can download them, even the perps.
Now if only 2 footage clips have been shown LIVE and the feed was picked up from military feeds, who else could have been involved?

You need only one guy who uploads the CGIs for a terrorist drill and also inserts them later into non-live footage while he was threatened to do so or still under the impression, it's just for the purpose of a terror drill.

But here are a few of the original sources:

-Tim Canale, taping from CNN (ex-9/11 Justice and Science Alliance
-Ally G., taping from various satellite tv feeds
-911chronology.com
-http://tinyurl.com/ld67r (antiquecast)
-terrorize.dk (2nd hit series)

and many others...

what about the other footage

What about every amature video showing plane 2.
What about every photograph of plane 2.

That couldn't have been the work of 1 man, getting every copy of video + photos documenting nothing, and then editing in planes, before the people had a change to develop them, and then destrying all the negetives...

Could 1 person have done the live tv feed edit. With a lot of planning and cooperation with media, maybe.

But what about all the other videos and photos that came out in the last 5 years that show a plane.

That would take a lot of people. And any amature that has video of no plane, which was confiscated by FBI, then edited, would probably be screaming about it on 911truth sites.

Once again. I'm not trying to say that your wrong, or lying, or anything against you. This is just a hurdle that stops me from accepting no-planes.

Yet another fruit

Yet another fruit loop.
"Janus" is asking the same questions, which had been answered again and again.

"...What about every amature video showing plane 2..."

All Amateur footage *you* are talking about had not been released to the public directly or got seized by FBI, FEMA + Co.

The amateur camera footage you are talking about ended up at Camera Planet, who's meanwhile getting their $$ from Bank of America.

CP didn't reveal to the public yet, who filmed, edited, or more obvious doctored some of them.

CP also didn't explain yet, while a lot of other amateur footage clips did NOT include any plane at time of 2nd attack, though matching vintage points with those of CP or MSM.

The following 2 footage clips are filmed from the same vintage point:
The second footage has no plane in it. Please explain why.
Noone answered on this question yet.

1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkPEyOQSX74
2)
http://tinyurl.com/ntej2

If you have a hurdle, then i recommend the other blog here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3018

Nico

I have never questioned your motives and I would appreciate it if you would not question mine. I had never heard of you until a few months ago so I have not seen all these links you refer to.

If you have a collection of high quality DivX videos it would be very helpful if you would make them available, as a collection, to others who want to view the evidence for themselves. I for one would greatly appreciate it because, frankly, the no-planes and TV Fakery sites I have looked at are very disorganized and full of small, fuzzy, heavily edited videos. I am unconvinced of both TV Fakery and no-planes but I don't know enough to rule them out completely.

I'm looking for the truth just like you. You seem very bitter about how you've been treated and I can understand that, but taking it out on me for simply requesting to see your source evidence does nothing to advance the theories you are trying to convince others are the truth.

Don't be coy. Share.

BCS,

BCS,

i gave you the links. See above.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3023#comment-71053

We also shared these links for years and they're up on my blog since months.

Maybe you start with 911chronology.com and then you will see, that the change of quality is neither watering down the argument on the one side or refining our argument for the much better.
http://www.archive.org/details/911-Chronology-Source

I will leave you with this quote:

Jim Fetzer about 9/11 TV Fakery:
"I'm certainly not prepared to deny that film has been altered"

(September 10th, 2006)

http://www.total411.info/2006/09/haupt-fetzer-on-911-tv-fakery.htm

I know what Jim Fetzer looks like.

And the quote from his is... well what's the point of including that? I'm not prepared to deny that film has altered either; I basically said the same thing. So what?

Anyway, two of the five sources you listed are not links. The tinyurl is dead. The 911chronology is a 4 GB download, which I've been unsuccessful in downloading so far. Hopefully I will see that soon. The terrorize.dk site seems to be the closest thing to a collection but it is missing several angles, like the two in your recent overlay video. I guess I have to hunt for those if I want to see the originals. And you say there are many others. Well this is a start. I still say you would be doing yourself a favor to publish your collection of high-res videos as a collection so that others can use them. But whatever, it's your call. Good luck.

try to reply...

I would have to see such video's. Could you please provide a source for them.

I really don't see what you see in these pictures.

The angle of the plane seems correct from the vantage point of the towers.

I don't see the point of the 16 pictures you just posted, they are out of context, and seem like pictures of the airplane, from different sources. I don't see what your showing...

you said:

"Also, your argument about speed is even a red herring for our own fakery evidence.

The footage contradicts in incoming speed *heavily*, but devil's advocate of media could spin they "rolled" it different, that's why i also didn't touch that point yet.

Ironically in this comparison also the official story contradict each other what *incoming speed" depends."

I don't even understand what your saying right now...
My argument against speed... That a 500mph plane on an amature video camera is blurrier than a moving object. How does the footage contradict the incoming speed? What contradiction?

I am not spamming, or lying as you imply. I just thought there could be a civilized discussion without namecalling, but you seem unable to do that.

Everyone but you seems to be discussing important fact and points.

"...a 500mph plane on an

"...a 500mph plane on an amature video camera is blurrier than a moving object..."

What is this for an absurde sentence?
It doesn't make any sense.

Typo, lol. A couple questions about 911, not about planes.

Sorry, I meant to say

"...a 500mph plane on an amature video camera is blurrier than a stationary object..."

I'll edit that now.

I have a few important questions for ewing, cb, any other no-planers that wish to participate in this discussion. This is not about planes, it's about 911.

1.) I assume you believe that WTC1+2+7 were brought down by explosives and/or incidiaries, is this correct?

2.) Do you believe those responsible are the administration, the government as a whole, parts of the CIA/FBI/DOD, the Major Media / Military companies? Who holds the most blame?

3.) What do you think the difference is in the BIG PICTURE of 911, when you believe no-planes/cgi? Is this only a different path to the same conclusions, or are there different conclusions on why it happened, and who's to blame?

4.) Why would they go through the trouble of faking the planes?

Why do you distract with 1,

Why do you distract with 1, 2, 3?

Another fruit loop tactic, which doesn't prove your seriousness on that topic, "Janus".

1) Yes. Not only i *believe* that, it was our very own science group, who proved this 4 years before Prof. Jones

2) check my articles
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html

3) media complicity. MSM furthermore is playing this movement since beginning of 2006. The alleged breakthrough on 9/11/06 also did not take place in MSM, as predicted.

4) Risk factor much less and no "trouble" at all.
Uploading logos or aircraft CGIs is not a big deal.
Because real planes, remote controlled or not would break apart and show empty seats since we believe they landed somewhere else (see team8plus.org)

You're fruitlooping.
I suggest you continue here, if you have anything new to say:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3018?page=1

Thank you

Thank you for responding to my questions.

I am trying to have this discussion because I think that we are all on the same page about who is to blame, and what needs to be done about. I was hoping that people would keep that in mind, and not begin angry accusations. I would think that you of all people would like to have a discussion like that.

I make points or questions with 1,2,3, so that hopefully all my points get addressed. Sometimes, people only respond to half a message, I was trying to avoid that.

What is fruit-looping?

I thought I would create this blog as a place to discuss with civility. Everyone on the blog you linked, seems to be attacking the messenger instead of discussing the point of the discussion.

The reason I am trying to discuss this is because it seems that everyone is on the same page when it comes down to the whos and whys. Why is there so much anger between differring opinions.

You seem to be on the attack, and I'm sorry, but I don't see why. When everyone else "Ban the spy's." I ask for a normal discussion with people who share your viewpoint.

If you cannot have a calm and decent discussion without getting aggrivated I suggest you continue here, if you have anything new to say:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3018?page=1

Well thanks for this

Well thanks for this communication :)

I'm glad i could help out getting a regular discussion going.
I'm also happy, that we both agree to meet here:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3018?page=1

My answers: For what it's worth.

1.) I assume you believe that WTC1+2+7 were brought down by explosives and/or incidiaries, is this correct?

Right.

2.) Do you believe those responsible are the administration, the government as a whole, parts of the CIA/FBI/DOD, the Major Media / Military companies? Who holds the most blame?

I'm not sure who it is, but I have some idea of who should be rounded up for questioning.

My main suspects point to Defense contractor corporations - private. Private sector security and intelliegence firms. Criminal gangs, in general must be involved IMO. So I would suspect organized crime: Mafias of various sorts, Italian, Russian perhaps, Israeli perhaps. I suspect the involvement of secret society(ies)? The Bush crime family syndicate/Regime is obviously involved. Who is behind them? - I have no idea Banking syndicates? i wouldn't be surprised. Old familiies with "old money?" Elitists? i wouldn't be surprised. People who like to make money on War, obviously. And that's an old story. Psychopaths? Absolutely. People who like to think of themsleves as good people? Probably. Don't we all? People who pride themselves on being evil when it is "necessary? Probably. People who get off on hurting others? Most definitely.

Sam Giancana told Chuck, his brother, "You can tell who did it by who remains alive." I do suspect the people on those 4 planes were some kind of insiders, thinking they were taking part in a "drill." I also believe that those who really did it are hiding behind several layers of potential fall guys. And that the fall guys themselves do not know for whom they work. I believe the big guys will never ever get caught - even if by some miracle we are able to get a hold of the foot soldiers.

The best we can hope for, IMO, is to stop further craziness from unfolding - to block things from going further. And to take back control of the Media.

Oh and the Media itself is a major perp - but just part of the foot soldier sector obviously - since they are owned. The owners probably aren't even the real perps, but just work for them/it - maybe without knowing exactly who that is.

I have even speculated to myself that there is one person alone at the top.:)

I have done some study/reading on despots and despotic personalities. Maybe some unknown name (the likelyhood we know the name(s) of the top perp(s) is truly less than the null set.) ;) But I think there might be a despot at the top of the pyramid -one person behind it entirely - a Dr. Evil? ;)
I think fiction often imitates reality, not the opposite.

It's easy to speculate when one has absolutely no good info on the subject. So I must truly remain an agnostic with mere informed suspicions.

3.) What do you think the difference is in the BIG PICTURE of 911, when you believe no-planes/cgi? Is this only a different path to the same conclusions, or are there different conclusions on why it happened, and who's to blame?

It's important for understanding the mind control / psy-ops aspect of the operation. And to understand how the point of view of the perps permeates the mental space of the culture at large - through Mass Media, particularly T.V.

If you don't completely understand the disease, you are not in the best postion to get well. If you don't know what disease you've got, you can't be treated for it.

Also, unless the Media are unmasked as the total frauds they all are, we are in much greater danger from what is to come.

I also happen to consider the video Fakery true! :)

I was brought up to believe the whole truth was a good thing, not to be afraid of or ashamed of.

Right or wrong, that was how I was brought up.

So it's not so much necessarily about "what it does for us." The truth is important to me in and of itself. It's an axiom for me. And almost a religion.

I'm beginning to understand lately how knowing the truth can show things ugly and painful - and how people are afraid of that - for good reason, but my instinct is still for it. Sometimes shame will cover the truth and that can be a good thing. But taken too far you get pathological denial, which is where I think we are as a culture/society. So I don't agree the watering down or dumbing down of 9/11 truth, compromising it, to make it palatable to the public at large is a good thing.

Not that I'm against getting through to people. I just don't think we need to be so frightened and bullied over what people will say about us. THE MEDIA IS NOT ON OUR SIDE ANYWAY. And nothing will change that.

People have to understand the depth of the mental conditioning of the public in order to be able to stop this fascism. And understand the true depth of the Media betrayal.

4.) Why would they go through the trouble of faking the planes?

Check below the Holmgren link titled, "Why They Didn't Use Airplanes"

It's part of an anthology of links put together by "Spooked."

I'm reproducing it here in its entirety for your reference:

The no-plane evidence kit:
compiled by "Spooked"

Why they Didn't Use Airplanes. by Gerard Holmgren

Hunt the Boeing, Shanksville Edition by "Killtown"

We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D

"Ghost Gun UA175"--careful analysis of the images of the plane everyone saw on TV
by Marcus Icke & Dr Stefan Grossmann

Why those plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers show that Boeing 767s did not hit the towers.
by Gerard Holmgren

The "Ghost-plane"-- frame-by-frame analysis. by the "WebFairy"

Connecting the Dots on the No Airplanes Theory" by "Spooked"

A Complete Critique of the South Tower Hit.
by "Spooked"

Arguing "no-planes"
by "Spooked"

Evidence of planted plane parts. A No-Airplanes Axiom

Flight Simulator Modeling Showing that 2nd Hit Videos Were Faked: here
, here
, here and here.

The 9/11 TV Fakery blog

My thanks to all the people who tirelessly promoted this concept-- against very heavy odds. These people were endlessly insulted and slandered, they know who they are. They eventually helped convince me.

"Spooked"
_____________________
I highly recommend Morgen Reynolds' piece linked above: "There are Holes in the Plane Theory." If you don't have time to look at everything, check out this one first.

I also recommend his How They Did the Plane Trick at WTC2

Thank you for your questions.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

No Planes are a double edged sword

Showing the CGI images that anyone sees and/or the footage that ,You Nico, CB, Killtown or anyone else puts out there can be scrutinized with logic placed on either end of the spectrum;
For instance, as the arguement goes that the plane does not show any loss of its original shape,the flip side of the arguement would say the plane speed and momentum will not show shape integrity loss untill the mass has met its equal force inside the building.
Or the video is faked. Debate goes on between whether or not how the plane does or does not change entering the building.
The basis being how many other videos of planes crashing into buildings have We seen before 9/11?
We have certainly seen controlled demolition before, which gives us an idea what happens to buildings being imploded.
All people have not seen prior video of an Airliner striking a skyscraper, so there is not much to go by as there is with controlled demolition.
So, then it has to be TV Fakery, but why fake the videos when there is 2.3 trillion dollars eventually found to be missing? 4 Airliners is a bargain in that kind of money.
How could you prove who did it? Or prove who did it?
You would still be left with the witnesses who saw the planes. The evidence would have to be so overwhelming as to rule out the witnesses who SAW the planes, fly-bys or not.

Mike, i know you're a master

Mike,

i know you're a master in switching the topics, but why don't you just stay focus or open your own blogs on "2.3 trillion dollars", "controlled demolition" and other topics.

I can therefore only respond on things, which i also already repeatedly answered:

1) All Eye-Witness reports *DO* contradict each other and are useless.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3018#comment-70867
And our latest 'valuable' eye-witness, John Albanese doesn't even tell us his view point position.

Mike Berger, who lived in St. Louis and still does,
as far as i know?
Maybe someone can organize his precise 'witness account 'as well, otherwise it's useless.

2) This blog here isn't even about concentrating on the physical violations of the butter-planes, so why do you distract with this analysis, which was done somewhere else?

3)"All people have not seen prior video of an Airliner striking a skyscraper.."

Which seems to me a questionable assumption by speaking for everyone.
There is actually video around, where plane crashes into buildings but didn't vanish into nothing or "dust".
Another distraction on physical and forensic evidence.

4)"...Debate goes on between whether or not how the plane does or does not change entering the building..."

Again you claim that the forensic evidence is the only evidence we debate. You are *wrong".

The forensic evidence was already picked up by the NPT alliance years ago, while 9/11 TV Fakery goes much much further and does not even need "NPT" to make a point.