WE WERE LIED TO: Follow-up
Regarding the previous post.
In case there was any doubt that the two videos show different plane paths, note the wing angle as the plane banks:
In video 1, the wings only rotate significantly after the plane has leveled off somewhat-- AFTER most of the descent has occurred.
In video 2, there is no change in descent before and after wing rotation.
The videos clearly show two very different approaches.
Video 1 is high quality with an excellent view of the oncoming plane before the explosion. Why would they need to fake the plane if they taped a plane there?
Video 2 is lower quality, ostensibly, amateur footage-- but is not a simple fake job as the plane goes in and out of focus and there is a zoom-out.
I welcome any explanaion for the discrepency in plane paths and for why the plane in one or both videos would be faked.
If you don't see a difference in plane paths in the videos linked in the previous post, please see an optometrist.
In case there was any doubt that the two videos show different plane paths, note the wing angle as the plane banks:
In video 1, the wings only rotate significantly after the plane has leveled off somewhat-- AFTER most of the descent has occurred.
In video 2, there is no change in descent before and after wing rotation.
The videos clearly show two very different approaches.
Video 1 is high quality with an excellent view of the oncoming plane before the explosion. Why would they need to fake the plane if they taped a plane there?
Video 2 is lower quality, ostensibly, amateur footage-- but is not a simple fake job as the plane goes in and out of focus and there is a zoom-out.
I welcome any explanaion for the discrepency in plane paths and for why the plane in one or both videos would be faked.
If you don't see a difference in plane paths in the videos linked in the previous post, please see an optometrist.
posted by spooked at 6:48 AM
7 Comments:
Spooked, your blog is far and wide one of my favorites, and I agree that there exists substanial evidence supporting your claims (and the claims of many others) of doctored video footage of the second hit, but I must ask, in all honesty, how are the arguments made by 'no-planers' capable of bringing the 'official story' to it's knees? I am not saying I don't see conflicting plane paths (i do) and I am not saying I cannot consider the possibily of doctored video footage or the use of drone planes (i can) but I am asking how many serious arguments can a 'no-planer' really make that will rip at the official story? In the end, all we're left with are some crappy video clips, two piles of rubble, and some ambiguious plane parts.
I wish http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/ was my favorite blog. IMHO, the evidence existing for controlled demolition is the smoking gun. I don't care if flying elephants hit the towers! What I do care about are the pools of molten metal found in the rubble weeks after 9/11, the near free fall collapse of steel framed three towers, the documented video evidence of demolition squibs, and the vast amount of NYFD reports which seem to indicate 'secondary devices'. Regardless of what hit the towers, if anything, the evidence for controlled demolition remains, and this is what I believe truthers should devote attention to.
Alex Jones recently did an interview with Professor Jones last week, where he described analysis done on steel from WTC (what little remains) and outlined evidence supporting controlled demolition: http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.htm or the actual MP3 http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.mp3
Thanks Shep. I know exactly what you mean and I can sympathize with what you are saying. I know some other people who think similarly-- basically that "yes, I can understand the no-plane argument, but it really is a difficult argument to make and demolition is so much easier to prove. Why can't we stick with demolition?"
My response is:
1) the WTC demolition is important and I am fine with promoting that aspect of 9/11
2) I am even fine with not discussing the no-plane theory to people until they are fairly deep into 9/11 and have caught onto the other stuff; certainly don't go around screaming to everyone I know that they didn't use real planes on 9/11. However, I like to show people the empty hole in Shanksville-- it's a great intro to the idea that 9/11 was a hoax.
3) ultimately, though, I think it is absolutely vital to understand what happened that day, and I think that the no-plane evidence is fairly strong when consdidered in total. Moreover, the important thing about the no-plane argument is that it shows that the MEDIA were in on 9/11; and it explains why they are covering up what happened. Finally, if we ignore the fact that the plane evidence is fake, we are letting a large number of perpetrators off the hook.
One other thing is that I think the case for demolition of the WTC towers is essentially closed. There is no real doubt as to the fact that the tower were blown up. On the other hand, what happened to the 9/11 planes, and what hit the WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville is a much more open question-- which is why I spend thinking about it and researching it.
how are the arguments made by 'no-planers' capable of bringing the 'official story' to it's knees?
there are so many aspects of the official fairytale that when scrutinized are shown to not hold any water that by all rights the fairytale should have brought itself to it's knees many times over by now. the fact that it hasn't is a great testimony to the power of the mcmedia who would seem to be obvious partners in perpetration.
if any pesky no-planers are making the "911truth movement" look bad, just say "hey you are interfering with my movement!" - that should get your point across.
Moreover, the important thing about the no-plane argument is that it shows that the MEDIA were in on 9/11; and it explains why they are covering up what happened
Good point Spooked. I've certainly considered this evidence, but when coupled with the possibility of doctored video footage, this certainly does focus the spotlight on the Media. In some ways, the video footage of the planes entering the towers is one of the larger hurtles to jump because so many people are under the impression that what they see on TV is the truth. MSM is heavily tainted in America and across the world.
if any pesky no-planers are making the "911truth movement" look bad, just say "hey you are interfering with my movement!" - that should get your point across.
Thanks James, but I think you're missing my point. I am not claiming at all the Spooked or any no-planer is "interfering with my movement". How selfish would that be? I am simply asking how the no-planer arugments stack up against the controlled demolition arguments with respect to exposing the truth. I wish, as Spooked says, "case for demolition of the WTC towers [were] essentially closed", but from my point of view, there are plenty of people out there who have yet to see this. He is right, in that with the community, this book is closed, but I think controlled demolition is the stone to throw, so to speak.
In the end, each of us goes out and talks to people about what we've researched and learned (atleast you should be!) and when talking to people about these issues, the first point I make is for controlled demolition. Some people may argument first and foremost for no-planers or pentagon missiles, but regardless, as you say James "there are so many aspects of the official fairytale that when scrutinized are shown to not hold any water". Whichever piece of the puzzle you choose to expose is one step closer to bringing down the official story.
Shep--
I agree with you. I am 100% convinced of demolition, and it is also a relatively easy case to make to people. While I am 100% convinced that something screwy happened with many of the south tower videos and that some of them are fakes, making the no-plane argument to people is hard because a) it is counter-intuitive, b) I can't prove it, c) I don't have a great explanation for what DID happen at the South tower (particularly what made the entry hole). But nonetheless, the no-plane theory is fascinating to explore, and it actually has its own internal coherence.
"hey you are interfering with my movement!"
ha ha - that wasn't directed at you in particular shep. on a certain other blog there are commenters (invariably with an ironic handle such as 'mr. truth' or equivalent) that waste no time pointing out the tin-foil hat aspects of no-planes and always say something like "you're hurting the movement" - i was thinking of them when i wrote that. if i were to respond directly to the 'mr. truths' i should say "your movement is interfering with the movement".
Post a Comment
<< Home