New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

BTW, that "banner" is called the "lower third" and there's nothing conspiratorial about it happening to 'hide' something that may be important to some fringe conspiracy theorists 5 years later.

Oh I see. I am a "fringe conspiracy theorist", and you are a "mainstream" conspiracy theorist.

All because a few pretty boy HAMS couldn't follow orders. Well thank goodness for the narcissistic impulses of some newsies. We may have all been taken in were it not for them.

I will be ignoring you until you actually post somehing of merit now.

does anyone remember watching live on the news and actually seeing a plane hit live?

i dont but that doesent mean didnt happen.

it is 100% certain that some of the videos are faked. finding out which are real and which are faked is the $60000 question.

Maybe if IgnoranceIsntBlisss got an even more GIGANTIC, brighter and more GARISH personal icon, and he posted some more TREMENDOUSLY large pictures, and spiced up his posts even more with pathetically juvenile person invective and RAMPED UP the patronizing tone just a tad more. Maybe then I could find him credible and somehow believable.

Sorry IgnoranceIsntBlisss, but although your personal icon is very large bright and garish as all get out, it really just isn't hideous enough.



And now for something completely different.



The media showed IMPOSSIBLE video footage of the nosecone exiting the other side, several news commentators even said, "and it flew right through the building!", .... CNN then immediately covered up that mistake with their banner, or, what is known by media insiders as, THE LOWER THIRD.

In addition all that footage of the supposed "fly through", was dropped from further video coverage, and the supposed fly through was never again spoken of.



It was the MEDIA who edited their footage later on, leaving out the "fly through", and not the guys who brought this to your attention. The media did so because they knew that was impossible and too many people would notice.


If you really want to know, the truth about this, then watch the video again.

[September
Clues]


"Don't I look great in this suit?" "The camera likes me, and so do the ladies let me tell you." "Some people say I am underweight, but I prefer to be trim, and I will outlive my critics because of it."

In the spirit of RTFM (google it), I decided to watch the video yet once again...

One particuar clip that is often repeated represents what I have seen of the whole TV Fakery idea. The clip with the octopus. It makes for the perfect analogy.

Within the the confines of the reef and plants (the Truth Movement) lies the perfectly hidden octopus (TV Fakery). As the unsuspecting fish (average truther) swims by, happy in his own little world, the octopus (TV Fakery) strikes out with a multi-tentacle attack (multiple threads) in attempt to devour the clueless fish (truther). Before the plan is fully realised, the octopus (TV Fakery) noticed the watchful eye of the cameraman (ATS Staff and members), jettisoned it's ink cloud (deployed diversion tactic of "censorship") and fled.

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Maybe if IgnoranceIsntBlisss got an even more GIGANTIC, brighter and more GARISH personal icon, and he posted some more TREMENDOUSLY large pictures, and spiced up his posts even more with pathetically juvenile person invective and RAMPED UP the patronizing tone just a tad more. Maybe then I could find him credible and somehow believable.

We're not kidding.

Posting privileges have been revoked for member "Natasha_Thompson" until further notice.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Sorry, but that is an urban legend, which has been disproved by everyone from TV's the Mythbusters to scientists at NOAA. It only looks like straw was rammed through telephone poles and trees.

Not through, but into. AND that is far from being an urban myth my dear Natasha, that is a fact. Have You ever seen such? With your own eyes? I would caution you from referencing that which is provided by 1s and 0s in the binary world, and ask that you Please take the time or put forth the effort to verify such With Your Own Eyes. Not only straw, but 2X4s as well ... firmly embedded in trees and other materials of similar density. It IS a Reality, whether you choose to believe so or not.


And much to your dismay:
lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov...

"A tornado can drive a straw through a telephone pole."
FACT: The forces inside a tornado are incredible, and still poorly understood. But they are certainly strong enough to turn otherwise harmless items into deadly missiles.

'Nuff said.

Your assertion that the media overlayed a "banner" with the sole intent to "Hide" a particular portion or aspect of that which was being broadcast is about as far a Leap as one can make. Honestly. If you're willing to accept that as proof that ALL videos broadcast that day were faked, forged or "real time" edits, well ... then I can only say Good Luck in life. You may find reality a hard pill to swallow.

I look forward to your response, while I anticipate nothing short of that which you've presented thus far.







 

[edit: to add]
Well, seeing as the wind has temporarily been removed from your sails, I guess I'll have to wait for your response ... if/when you can find it within yourself to post in accordance of the minimal constraints set by the Terms and Conditions

 

[edit on 10-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Velocity, weight and density. Yes, but I feel you are being far too dismissive of the cumulative potential or destructive effect held by the sum total. Straw is a lightweight [low mass density] material, yet when propelled by the winds of a tornado it has often demonstrated the ability to penetrate telephone poles ... amongst other more hardened materials. STRAW. You know that stuff you can literally turn to dust by simply rubbing it between your hands

2 thoughts if you will...

1. this is the straw knocking the phone pole over without the wind's help.

2. you make the case that the nose actually did come out the other side. thats not on the gadzillions of videos we've seen to date.

we as a community need to research the authenticity of 2 of the clips in this video...

1. the plane coming out the other side.
2. the clip(s) that show no plane whatsoever (the helicopter perspectiive)

of particular interest is the clip where they claim it would take 17 seconds for the plane to hit the building, no plane is in the clip, and aprox. 9-10 seconds later it hits the building.

if i saw the same video (the one of the plane crash thru) from one or 2 more sources independent of the OP i would be 100% convinced.

Below are 6 images from the Chopper 5 video. Some are of the nose of the airplane, some are of the nose-out/debris/whatever. Which are which?

Other than being enlarged, they are not altered.

Originally posted by jprophet420
1. the plane coming out the other side.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do not believe it has been absolutely proven that the artifact we see is indeed the "plane" coming out the other side. But it does seem as though we have proven that images of the artifact have been altered by proponents of the theory to support the idea of an emerging plane.

Originally posted by jprophet420
2. the clip(s) that show no plane whatsoever (the helicopter perspectiive)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Through a careful analysis of stills from the side-by-side video, we can clearly see that the North Tower could have obscured the approaching aircraft from "camera one". It is more plausible to believe that perspective blocked the view of one camera, than it is to believe the event was faked.

you are missing the point. it doesent matter what is coming out of the building, its not in the other videos. it means one of the videos is faked.

same with the missing plane aspect. in one 'live' video its missing, but in the archive video it is there. again one of the videos was faked.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Maybe if IgnoranceIsntBlisss got an even more GIGANTIC, brighter and more GARISH personal icon, and he posted some more TREMENDOUSLY large pictures, and spiced up his posts even more with pathetically juvenile person invective and RAMPED UP the patronizing tone just a tad more. Maybe then I could find him credible and somehow believable.

Too funny when you provide a massive refutation to irrational claims and the only response is direct ad hominem attacks... and then repeating the same thing they said before the refutation. I'd almost feel bad for you getting blocked from posting, as I found your remarks to be a barrel of laughs, but since you clearly have no interest in or contempt for actual truth I spare little pity.

Anyways it's 'too bad' they didn't actually shoot a missile into the South Tower, because then I could provide you with an photo of what that type of damage would have looked like in that specific building.


In closing I must wrap up with some neuroscience, as you keep insisting that I and others rewatch the video. I'll try to keep this as simple as possible. Thought patterns, memories, skills, mindsets and so on are more or less physical constructs withing the brain. Complex networks of interconnected neurons that strengthen the more you 'excite' the respective neuron networks. That means that the more you watch something you identify with, the stronger you will identify with or will believe in whatever is the concept. That part is especially crucial when it comes to beliefs. I can only speculate on how many times you've watched that video by now, and since you self-identify with it everytime you do the more this belief will strengthen. Once you reach a critical mass you will self-decieve yourself, when contradictory information comes in, to maintain this ideal belief which you have self-identified with. In essence, for us to attack it is to attack you personally. This closing concept has been proven by fMRI brain scan studies.

You telling someone who hasn't irrationally self-identified with it to watch it again wouldn't be ideal in a case such as this because you're only inviting yet more scrutiny. I'd wager that if I were to bother watching it again I'd surely have some more negative examples that I havent noticed yet and nobody else has bothered posting on. Since you do care about this belief, ask yourself if you're sure you'd like me to watch it again...

You know, speaking of neuroscience... you're mind is obviously made up, so why do you keep comming back to this thread to argue with natasha? What's the neurochemistry behind that behavior? The rest of us would like to discuss this theory before everybody gets banned if that would be ok with you.

Originally posted by jprophet420
1. this is the straw knocking the phone pole over without the wind's help.

Huh? Please clarify as to the point your attempting to make here. (?)

2. you make the case that the nose actually did come out the other side.

I most certainly did not ... from where did you come to such a conclusion?

 

 

1. the force of the impact was not nearly enough to collapse the building.
2. Nat made her point (that the plane was essentially a 'soft projectile' and would not emerge), and you countered it. point counter point format, im missing whats hard to understand, and either way it fuels the debate immensely. either the object that hit had the physics behind it to emerge relatively in tact or not. 2 different scenarios and videos to support both. which videos are fake and which are real is the only question worth answering here, and the only one not getting answered.

this thread has been up for 2 days. i noticed the last videos to assert video witch doctors were debunked promptly. surely, somebody on ATS must have footage from a vcr or dvr that was recording 'live', and not replayed 'live' footage.

the math could be done on the zoom shot i mentioned in my last post, and i would gladly do it myself if only i knew the distance in the shot and the alleged speed of the plane. in other words please anybody who knows how estimate distance in a video, or anyone with a legit clip please step forward.

Originally posted by jprophet420
same with the missing plane aspect. in one 'live' video its missing, but in the archive video it is there. again one of the videos was faked.

Can you please provide an example of this? I've not seen such a thing.

Thank you.

Originally posted by jprophet420
1. the force of the impact was not nearly enough to collapse the building.

Uhm, I think that has been clearly established ... even in the NIST report.
Who, certainly not myself, has claimed that the impact Alone brought down either or both? You lost me, there.

2. Nat made her point (that the plane was essentially a 'soft projectile' and would not emerge), and you countered it.

"Nat" gave little more than an opinion. An opinion as fallible and full of demonstrated misconceptions/errors as the friggin' 9-11 Commission's Report itself.

jprophet420,
Would you please respond with some sort of clarification as to What the point of #1 is?

Thanks in advance, and all the best.

 

[edit: bbcode for second quote]

[edit on 10-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

As has been stated repeatedly by MANY people, we don't know WHAT that object coming out of the building is. It's definitely SOME part of the plane, based on trajectory, but we can't say with 100% certainty if it's nose, engine, landing gear, or what. It's almost certainly NOT the nose section though.

Originally posted by twitchy
You know, speaking of neuroscience... you're mind is obviously made up, so why do you keep comming back to this thread to argue with natasha? What's the neurochemistry behind that behavior? The rest of us would like to discuss this theory before everybody gets banned if that would be ok with you.

Entertainment.

If you guys could actually offer up some real evidence (or rather the actual evidence with the nosecomes)or answer some questions that are key to the theory you wouldnt have to tell me my mind is made up. Look how long it took to have the question about the hole answered. My refutation was countered with insults. What is there to actually debate about?

Really tho I don't mind to help put this diversionary disinfo campaign to rest.

Originally posted by jprophet420
you are missing the point. it doesent matter what is coming out of the building, its not in the other videos. it means one of the videos is faked.

same with the missing plane aspect. in one 'live' video its missing, but in the archive video it is there. again one of the videos was faked.

Disclaimer: I apologize if I come off seeming snarky. Its been a long day but I have to chime in here.

So it is agreed that on of the videos is inacurate. Good. Now lets look at reality. What is more plausible: A) the video that was shot live that day and millions of people saw on television or B) video that has been sitting around for 5 years and allready edited to add pauses, voice overs, etc etc? Now ask yourself what would a thinking rational person find more credible? Whats to say the nose cone and such were not added into the edited for presentation "footage"? What exactly is it that makes this video more plausible than the fact that I personaly witnessed a plane crash into the building.

Its not something that I normaly discuss nor will I go into a lot of detail but I was there, I saw the impact. Now I am not a shill that believes every single word of the "Official Explanation" before anyone starts to think otherwise. I know that we havent heard everything there is to know about this. But to tell me that there were no planes that day is quite frankly an insult to not only EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS but to the thousands of people who lost thier lives and the thousands of families that lost loved ones.

I truely aplaude your intensity in the effort of getting to the bottom of this very deep conspiracy but I feel as though you are doing yourselves a disservice. You are truely barking up the wrong tree. Personaly Im not sure we should be focusing so much on the "how did the towers come down" as opposed to the "who took them down and why" But at the same time understanding how often times will lead to the other answers. I want to encourage each and every one of you that are truely searching for the truth to please keep fighting the good fight but dont get so lost in it that you go beyond the lies we have been told into the realm of the " its so rediculous it must be the truth" theories.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As has been stated repeatedly by MANY people, we don't know WHAT that object coming out of the building is. It's definitely SOME part of the plane, based on trajectory, but we can't say with 100% certainty if it's nose, engine, landing gear, or what. It's almost certainly NOT the nose section though.

this should answer all questions except the tornado/straw comparison...

whatever it was, it was not the same as the more publicized videos. if the OPs video is fake, yet someone posts the same video without the mass being ejected from the side of the building, OP will be debunked. if others post the video from different sources and they show the exact same imagery we will know that the forged video aired, and was therefore not invented by the producers of this video. btw i agree that in all of the popular shots there is an ejection from the building, however it looks nothing like what the videos in this thread show. there is a difference.

as far as the tornado analogy, heres what im saying... a tornado can lodge a straw into a tree/phone pole, yes. however, the straw requires a tornado to push it thru. the analogy i failed to persuade you to infer is that the piercing of the towers by the jetliners would require some sort of outside force to bring them down. the debate seems to be jet fuel vs energy weapons atm.