Humint Events Online: Video Fakery Watch: Article on 2nd Plane Witnesses in NYTimes

Monday, August 30, 2010

Video Fakery Watch: Article on 2nd Plane Witnesses in NYTimes

Somewhat odd piece, and this section was particularly odd:
The video on American Rhetoric also includes frightening close-range images of the second crash that weren’t broadcast at the time, notably a shot looking north at the south tower right above tree level. A stray piece of video plays over unconnected audio from NPR. The video-audio mismatch suggests the extent of the editing. This is a brief designed to remind us of what struck observers at the time as self-evident: that there is someone to blame and punish for the attacks of Sept. 11.
So the fact that the video is clearly edited is supposed to make us think there is someone to blame and PUNISH for 9/11?


Funny they also mention clearly bogus 2nd plane witness Theresa Renaud:
By contrast, the thoughts of Theresa Renaud, an eyewitness in a building at Eighth Avenue and 16th Street, go first to logistics. Speaking of the plane that just hit the south tower, Renaud says to Bryant Gumbel on CBS: “Flew right in the middle of it. Explosion. My God, it’s right in the middle of the building.” Then she skips a step and offers an inference: “That definitely looked like it was on purpose.”
Clearly bogus as she was 2 miles north of the towers, with not a great view of any plane coming from the south, and she just also happened to be the wife of a CBS producer.


Blogger BG said...

I take issue with the stance you are taking here.

We can agree that if something hit the WTC Towers on 9/11, it wasn't a large commercial jetliner such as AA 11 or UA 175.

We should also agree that a large (> 10) number of people reported seeing an aircraft (not on TV). Some report only hearing the sound.

Furthermore, the damage to WTC 2 is consistent with a secret "bunker busting" missile of some type.

The navigation of that aircraft which struck WTC is consistent with a precision guidance, not a pilot.

I believe the great number of witnesses, including Renaud, have expressed accounts which match perfectly with what was observable. The conclusion that the descriptions are not earnest, or that they slanted away from leading to the truth, is simply irresponsible and counterproductive.

10:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger