Filmer of accused fake WTC crash video won't disclose shot locaton

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


He gave up his right to privacy by allowing CNN to not only have the tape/footage, but also his name be attached to it. Sorry.

reply to post by PandorasBox


Are the trees mature in the original video? Can you, PandorasBox tell me with 100% certainty that those trees were not capable of growing anymore after 2001? I doubt it. I cant tell you that either, but I can tell you that unless I have a biology professor sitting in front of me telling me that it is not possible for those trees to grow because the had reached maximum potential I will not cut out the possibility that in six and a half years that those trees grew.

this entire conspiracy is kind of new to me and many parts don't seem to fit. if this video is fake then what about the other video of this plane hitting the tower on live news broadcast? are they all fake or just this one? if it is just this one my question would be why bother doing it, put your name to it and give it to cnn and never be heard of again? if its all the videos then how did they do it live?
im not trying to debunk i'm just curious what your hypothesis of the planes is and why its important to prove only this to be fake footage.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by LordBaskettIV

 

He gave up his right to privacy by allowing CNN to not only have the tape/footage, but also his name be attached to it. Sorry.

He what????? Your logic doesn't pass the smell test. To maintain copyright, his name has to be somewhere onscreen so some yahoo doesn't purloin it a la Loose Change and 'liberate' it. Seeing a name on the tube doesn't automatically give anybody the right to pester a stranger. If it were to pursue that kind of logic, I would be within my rights to drive up to the Sault, Ontario, find this Jeff-whoever-he-is and pepper him with stupid questions.

Believe it or not, the man has a business to run and fielding stupid questions from some stranger isn't one of them.

Originally posted by pinner99Are the trees mature in the original video? Can you, PandorasBox tell me with 100% certainty that those trees were not capable of growing anymore after 2001? I doubt it.

I've seen pre-911 photos and post-911 photos and the tree height looks the same. How do you explain that?

Some people can be likened to extremists. As always it happens within a small minority, but sheer belief clouds there judgment.

They trail over everything and go beyond research towards one way robotic thinking.

Step out of your bubble.

You’re creating Propaganda using this poor guy in your video.

What would you do if you were advised by lawyers to keep silent regarding a video you shoot which you then sold/gave to CNN. (Probably go public, I think NOT)

This poor guy doesn’t want to get caught up in this, he probably just wants to get on with his life, he works at a jewellers for Gods sake, but idiots like YOU ruin it by spreading his name everywhere, creating videos insisting inaccuracies at every turn.

Furthermore you’re not addressing all the questions and not answering all the questions. Only creating what makes you feel right and happy eh…. Emmm sound familiar - 9/11 + US Government…… You’re as bad as them......

Go ruin your own life, not someone else’s.

This post refers to the makers of that film......

Here is a comparison KT just sent me...



To me, the heights of the trees look the same.

reply to post by Klaxmexalix


im sorry, could you repeat that...the missile? so, this supposedly fake airplane fires a missle into the building, gives off a fireball thats obviously fuel and not high explosives and after an HE loaded missile hits the building it stands for an hour?

so was it a plane or a hologram? did he film a plane or was it a fake? if its a fake why would they put a missile being launched into a fake video?


can we get one theory and stick with it? or at least narrow the field a little if we cant decide on one?

what really bothers me though, this guy calls him at work and lies to him to start with, student doing a 911 memorial for a class? (did i get that right?) and then assumes its a fake because the guy doesnt want to waste his time? has it occured to anyone that maybe since he DID sign over the rights to it (more than likely for a pretty penny) that his lawyer feels its in his best interest to NOT answer questions just so that "students from canada" cant take his quotes and twist them all to hell so that he ends up sounding like he said something he didnt?

gees, i mean if the guy wants to do a conspiracy piece he could have just identified himself as the author of his website and just said to the guy "hey, this is jeff from (insert site here) and im working on a piece investingating some alternative angles to the govts 911 account, would you be willing to answer some questions?"
chances are he'd get the same response he got but at least his integrity and credibility would be intact.

at least when CIT did their pentacon movie they were straight up with people about it. i disagree wtih them but respect the fact that they werent out there lying to people to get their story.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by Damocles]

reply to post by PandorasBox



Can't we ever have a picture taken from a different place where someone has tried very hard to get the angle right, instead of from a boat in the middle of the river? All I ever see is that same angle being used to disprove it, and it doesn't really since it is clearly not in the right place.

If the people trying to disprove this video could try from all angles to make sure this image is not possible, I would give them some credit. Since they haven't and just use this one or from the shore to do it, I won't be convinced.