Questions for TV "Fakery"

Answer these questions and then it will actually be worth peoples time to look at the "evidence". If you can't answer these then please stop wassting everyones time. Nothing is more valuable than time, and to waste peoples time is a total outrage.

TV "Quackery": Let's keep this short and simple:

1) What caused the impact explosions / fireballs?

2) What caused the 'cartoon cutout' holes in the buildings?

3) How did they pay off the witnesses from where they had to plant evidence where the aircraft parts landed in the streets?

4) Why not simply USE THE DAMN PLANES? Why go to all this trouble and risk being caught? Many of the more digestible theories are already pushing the limits of complexity as it is.

5) Can you tell me what the Archive.org Collection is? If so, have you actually analyzed these or are you just going off of crappy internet videos that have been reformatted and re-encoded over and over?

6) Do you realize how bad you're hurting the movement by pushing this quackery and diverting everyones time and focus?

7) Do you not care that when this is all over with your credibility will be so damaged that nobody will listen to you on any other issues?



Anyone else feel free to add more questions to this list.


[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Well according one of those videos that people highly suggest that you have to watch, I did a review in another thread, the answer is Inside Job. So with that in mind:

1) Inside job. Bush broke out a box of crayolas and colored it in. He got outside the lines too.
2) Inside job. Silerstein owns a big saws-all. he has the money for it.
3) Inside job. IRS funding, those that didn't sell out became victims.
4) Inside job. The government is all powerful, using planes would be too low tech like what a guy living in cave would do.
5) Inside job. Marge Simpson says Nuclear the same way.
6) Inside job......Their intention is to hurt the movement.

Yeah poor humor on my behalf. But honestly do you think they can give any answer that isn't as methodical and uninspired?

IIB to seriously answer you, I believe that the TV fakery is nothing more than trying to come up with their own independent theory to stand out from the crowd. The fact that it has caused multiple page "conversation" is only feeding their ego that they are important. The constaint attacks and derails from intelligent presentation as the community focuses on them feeds the ego as well.

Yes I am guilty of placing a post or so in the threads. Some were very carefully worded to figure them out. These proponents are not idiots at all. They are fairly intelligent and use inanity for the ego stroke. It is all mental masterbation and unfortunately too many are helping them out. Like the flasher in the trenchcoat they thrive on the shock reactions they are getting. Best to be like the young woman that looks down and looks directly in his eyes with an apathetic look and states flattly "I've seen bigger." and walk away.

Without the attention given they will be forced to come up with something new to get their jollies.

Adding questions while I am typing isn't fair. 7) Wish they would do their 'job' inside and not in public...too may voyeurs.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by Ahabstar]

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

My own question on this and I have alluded to it in my "Logic of No planes" thread
LOGIC

Why do they believe the MEDIA and their reports on 9/11 being an actual event?

In other words with their own logic one could assume 9/11 didn't happen.

They don't believe the MEDIA that day.
They don't believe the eyewitnesses.
They don't believe people were on board the planes.

So why do they believe anything on 9/11 since most of us rely on these thing to make informed decisions.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

Good points

You forgot to link in your thread!

I forgot to point out that if there are some real answers to these question then the theory might have a leg to stand on. If there is no answer, then in terms of logic the theory is compete trash. Too few realize that you can lose a debate by simply giving "False Dichotomies", that is, to offer narrow "dilemmas" or skip out on others completely, and then declaring that you're right (especially in absolutist terms). If you can't explain each dichotomy and then argue the one that is correct then you lose the debate. If you can't offer ANY dichotmies other than: "see it's fake, case closed" then you're basically pissing up a rope.
en.wikipedia.org...

Because only a small part of the plane (maybe the engine) would have gone inside the building. The wings could not have substained the impact (maybe yes) as well as the tail section. Now could a couple of engines bring down the WTC? I don't think so. There would have been to many variables at stake. A missle was actually a much easier choice. Also If the whole building was rigged with explosive you don't want a damn boeing fully loaded impact with so many risk factors involved.

IgnoranceIsntBlisss I honestly have the highest respect for your posts but you should look into it a little further.
Is this hurting the movement? Yes. But the issue needs to be examined anyway. Its like the meteorite no one has a good explanation for it yet but it happens to be real and its there.

I hate to speak in absolutisms, but the missile theory is IMPOSSIBLE.

It couldn't have made the perfect plane cartoon shapes.

The high explosives would have blown out a large cavity inside there, however you could see the floors still intact all the way until the collapse sequence started.

Please try to answers the numbers.

I tryng not to attack anything yet. I thought I'd open this up with simple straightforward questions. If they can get past the questions then maybe there's something to talk about.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
4) Why not simply USE THE DAMN PLANES? Why go to all this trouble and risk being caught?

Believability:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've actually argued somewhere in here before that choosing to use bombs would actually 'make sense' to think tank planners because "logicians" would later rule it out as negative following Occamz Razor. The reason I offered that explaination was because my argument was that if 911 were a true .gov conspiracy then ensuring the towers collapse was crucial in carrying out the full psyop that it was intended to be. No collapses and their psyop would have been nowhere near as effective as what happened after 911.


So then there's a rationale that wouldn't make it too far fetched that perhaps they wouldn't have been afraid to do the no planes because nobody would ever believe it... BUT WHY? Why not just use the planes? Then they'd have to deal with faking radar signals, disposing of the planes + people, setting up the 'holograms', planting the plane parts evidence, deploying phoeny witnesses, manipulating the TV signals, MKULTRA brainwashing the news people, etc and so on. Where does this actually make sense? Why not just use the planes?


What about my other questions? If you guys can actually answers these questions then perhaps it would be worth anyones time to actually look at the so called evidence in the first place. If you can't answer these questions then there's really no reason for anyone to waste their time with this. There's already too many other diversionary issues about 9/11 that's keeping everyone from what I call "actionable consensus" issues.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Looks like someone is offending and is flagging the threads I'm active in today as "Thread Alert". I'm honored


The No Plane Challenge

What piece of evidence would get you to admit that planes did hit the towers?

[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I think we need to recognise this debate actually consists of two seperate issues: TV fakery and no planes. Evidence of TV fakery is not proof of no planes, whereas evidence of no planes of course proves TV fakery.

I remain unconvinced but 'open' about fakery. Nothing I've seen recently proves it, but it would be dishonest of me to say that, given the material presented, it doesn't warrant further scrutiny.

As for no planes - the overarching problem is that every single image we have of a plane approaching and/or striking the towers, whether still or moving, must be a fake for this theory to hold up. If just one image is genuine, the no plane theory is a busted flush. I simply cannot believe that none of the plane images we have is genuine.

So here's the challenge. Find one image or video that shows a plane and for which there is no good reason to label it a fake.

I'll start with an unspectacular one by a guy named Robert Fisch.



To the 'no-planers' - real or fake?

It would appear that the sudden requirement to be polite and respectful has resulted in Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt's 911Researchers.com minons to turn tail and run.

I'd like to suggest that this development, the requirement to engage in civil dialog, is evidence of their intent to deceive. It being much easier to be ambiguous through feigned indignation. Given the sources of this contemporary version of the WebFairy's "no planes", we must include their style of delivery as part of their "evidence".

Originally posted by coughymachine
I think we need to recognise this debate actually consists of two seperate issues: TV fakery and no planes. Evidence of TV fakery is not proof of no planes, whereas evidence of no planes of course proves TV fakery.

I remain unconvinced but 'open' about fakery.

Dig. If there is proof I surely want to know about it, but when these people are pushing out what are agruably fabrications it tends to drive you away from even looking for said 'proof'. Now if there is proof I'd take that as someone in some place pulling some strings in some way to lay the groundwork for the sort of diversion and controversy as we're all now aware of.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
It would appear that the sudden requirement to be polite and respectful has resulted in Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt's 911Researchers.com minons to turn tail and run.

Good times. I was actually quite surprised to see killtown in this. Apparently i hadn't seen his full body of work because i had no idea he was a no planer. I was actually surprised to see anyone still pushing the no planes theories. Love some of killtowns timelines I've looked thru.

But since it turns out killtown has been a no planer for quite some time, it speaks volumes that he waas unable to easily answer my little questionaire here. No Planes = ABSURD

Do let me know if some clear cut "Fakery" is found, and I'm talking irrefutable and undeniable, not a 'maybe'.

The TV Fakery research is totally sound. Download the videos yourself and compare them if you don't want to take my word for it.

Meanwhile, people with professional audio credentials are debunking the fake audio that went along with the fake video. Check out livevideo.com... for the latest in audio fakery research.

Originally posted by bsregistration
Meanwhile, people with professional audio credentials are debunking the fake audio that went along with the fake video. Check out livevideo.com... for the latest in audio fakery research.

Ok, it may be a real bit of footage, but the sound when the plane hits the building sounds fake to me. Considering all other footage with sound has an explosion sound in it, with the appropriate delay. So why would this one have such a sound in it? It sounds either a) to be something that was in the background, or b) something added later to make the footage look fake.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by apex]

Sure looks like a plane hits the building to me. Also one of the witnesses says another plane just flew into the other tower. So if your a "no planer" the whole audio must be fake, rigth?

Gosh, didn't you guys realize yet that obviously the twin towers were holograms themselves. Along with all the people that worked in and around them... derrr

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
But since it turns out killtown has been a no planer for quite some time, it speaks volumes that he waas unable to easily answer my little questionaire here. No Planes = ABSURD

No, it speaks volumes when you post immature comments like "TV "Quackery"" and "No Planes = ABSURD". Grow up first and then maybe we'll try to address all your questions.

So you refuse to answer these key questions because I find the no planes theory absurd and the members of your crew have been propagating quack evidence with rude & irrational attitudes?

Hey, if you don't actually want to explain your theory that's all you. My theory is that this entire melodrama is diversionary disinfo, whether each and everyone of you are witting or not, and to not man up and answer the questions seems to demonstrate exactly that. I say unwitting because the goal of propagandists is to influence others into parroting their disinfo. Since your crew came up in here like gangbusters I have a very hard time as not seeing this as an intentional campaign. If any of you could actually offer up some clear rational and irrefutable explainations perhaps I wouldn't have to take this stance.

I'm not the one rabidly declaring tv fakery / no planes in Absolutist Extremes, but with unsound evidence and irrational / disruptive / hard-question-avoiding rhetorical maneuvering. I'm still waiting for any of you to explain the holes. If nobody can explain the holes besides mentioning the so called "orbs" / "ufo's" while avoiding directly answering the holes I'll continue to frown upon any who push this diversionary smut.

You should know better than most of how many diversions are already in full effect and are destroying any hopes of "actionable consensus" in this so-called "911 Truth Movement", and you're only making matters worse. If you could generate a persuasive case then perhaps I and others could see things differently. Instead you and your crew have avoided these fundamental questions, and in light of that you're nothing but a detriment to the movement. Answer up, or perhaps it's time you and your squad should go take a look in the mirror and think about what you're doing here and everywhere else.

Originally posted by bsregistration
The TV Fakery research is totally sound. Download the videos yourself and compare them if you don't want to take my word for it.

Meanwhile, people with professional audio credentials are debunking the fake audio that went along with the fake video. Check out livevideo.com... for the latest in audio fakery research.

So are you suggesting that the video is CGI, because there may be a discrepency with the audio timing on this particular piece of footage?

I'm having a hard time distinguishing between you guys and TV Fakery and No Planes, for rather obvious reasons. I hope this thread hasn't been to confusing, but I'm rathe rconfused about what exactly you guys are trying to promote with all of this. For instance in that Killtown vs. Avery radio show it sure sounded like Killtown was saying that the plane absolutely didn't hit. With your example here we're now taking the context away from the Media News performing some kind of provoking fakery, and even ameteurs + Camera Planet are involved in said fakery, but in yet another case here it seems you guys are saying it's all fake meaning no planes. If you could clarify perhaps I could better assess your stance.

I'd like to point out that the entire idea of diversionary disinfo is to make things as confusing as possible, and that's precisely what you guys have been doing here.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]