TV Fakery -- Not Dead Yet!
Watch this:
then the first few minutes of this:
then this:
Which reminds me of this old observation, how the 2nd shot of the 2nd hit shown by CNN had no plane.
It is also remarkable how several 2nd hit videos had zoom-outs or zoom-in one second before the plane came.
Video fakery could have been done either: to cover up that the plane that hit the towers was nothing like a 767, OR to convince people there was a plane when in reality no plane came close to hitting the towers and the tower damage was done by some other means.
Of course, there was clearly video fakery, because some footage shows a picture perfect 767-200, whereas other footage shows a mutant Boeing-like plane somewhat smaller than a 767-200.
And we know no normal plane would have melted into the tower the way "UA175" did.
The big question is: did some non-conventional plane hit the tower that was actually videotaped live and then some videos were faked later? Or was the building damage produced by a different mechanism and all videso were faked?
I have gone back and forth on this, and certainly there are good arguments for both sides.
I think right now I am leaning somewhat more towards the pure video fakery side.
then the first few minutes of this:
then this:
Which reminds me of this old observation, how the 2nd shot of the 2nd hit shown by CNN had no plane.
It is also remarkable how several 2nd hit videos had zoom-outs or zoom-in one second before the plane came.
Video fakery could have been done either: to cover up that the plane that hit the towers was nothing like a 767, OR to convince people there was a plane when in reality no plane came close to hitting the towers and the tower damage was done by some other means.
Of course, there was clearly video fakery, because some footage shows a picture perfect 767-200, whereas other footage shows a mutant Boeing-like plane somewhat smaller than a 767-200.
And we know no normal plane would have melted into the tower the way "UA175" did.
The big question is: did some non-conventional plane hit the tower that was actually videotaped live and then some videos were faked later? Or was the building damage produced by a different mechanism and all videso were faked?
I have gone back and forth on this, and certainly there are good arguments for both sides.
I think right now I am leaning somewhat more towards the pure video fakery side.
posted by spooked at 4:01 PM
4 Comments:
At 3:11 of the second video, you can hear someone in the background say, "Another plane?" rather incredulously while the commentator is explaining another plane just hit the second tower. Interesting.
Pre 911 Speech (9/10/2001)
The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America. This adversary is one of the world's last bastions of central planning. It governs by dictating five-year plans. From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans and beyond. With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas.
Perhaps this adversary sounds like the former Soviet Union, but that enemy is gone: our foes are more subtle and implacable today.
The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy.
Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on.
Let's make no mistake: The modernization of the Department of Defense is a matter of some urgency. In fact, it could be said that it's a matter of life and death, ultimately, every American's.
That's why we're here today challenging us all to wage an all-out campaign to shift Pentagon's resources from bureaucracy to the battlefield...
We know the adversary. We know the threat. And with the same firmness of purpose that any effort against a determined adversary demands, we must get at it and stay at it.
Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.
Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security.
...where threats were visible and predictable, to one in which they arise from multiple sources, most of which are difficult to anticipate, and many of which are impossible even to know today.
Business enterprises die if they fail to adapt, and the fact that they can fail and die is what provides the incentive to survive. But governments can't die, so we need to find other incentives for bureaucracy to adapt and improve.
Today's announcements are only the first of many. We will launch others ourselves, and we will ask Congress for legislative help as well.
...this effort demands personal and sustained attention at the highest levels ...leaders are experienced, talented, and determined. I am delighted they are on our team. I would not want to try to stop them from what they came into this Department to do. I expect them to be enormously successful...
To transform the Department, we must look outside this building as well.
Let me conclude with this note. Some may ask, defensively so, will this war on bureaucracy succeed where others have failed? To that I offer three replies. First is the acknowledgement, indeed this caution: Change is hard. It's hard for some to bear, and it's hard for all of us to achieve.
...there will be real consequences from, and real resistance to, fundamental change. We have brought people on board who have driven similar change in the private sector. We intend to do so here.
...this effort will succeed because it must. We really have no choice. It's really about the security of the United States of America. And let there be no mistake, it is a matter of life and death. So today we declare war on bureaucracy...
...there are those who will oppose our every effort ...Well, fine, if there's to be a struggle, so be it. ...if you do something, somebody's not going to like it, so be it. Our assignment is not to try to please everybody. A cab driver in New York City ought to be able to feel...
I have confidence that we can do it. It's going to be hard. There will be rough times. But it's also the best part of life to be engaged in doing something worthwhile.
Every person within earshot wants to be a part... I know it. You know it. Let's get about it.
Remarks as Delivered by Donald H. Rumsfeld, The Pentagon, Monday, September 10, 2001
Donald H. Rumsfeld's Pre 911 Speech
The next morning, September 11, 2001, The Pentagon as well as the WTC Towers in NYC came under attack.
Coincidence?
Allow a person to speak -- and listen carefully, they will tip their hand.
wow, great find, Notepad
i remember Rummy gave some kind of weird speech in the days leading to 9-11, i guess this was it...i remember just "feeling" something weird was going to happen around that team of year...and Bush's approval ratings were in the DUMPS...
Post a Comment
<< Home