Missing Choppers, Fake Collapse Footage, and How They Hid the Nuking
This makes some decent points:
I've long been interested in the choppers that appear in some footage and not in others. I've long wanted to do a thorough study of this, but never had the time.
Like this video shows a chopper coming around the west side of WTC1 right after the 2nd hit, but good luck finding a) other footage showing this chopper, or b) footage FROM this chopper!
I think the itinerant choppers are damn good evidence that the video footage from 9/11 showing plane hits and building collapses just can't be trusted.
I've long been interested in the choppers that appear in some footage and not in others. I've long wanted to do a thorough study of this, but never had the time.
Like this video shows a chopper coming around the west side of WTC1 right after the 2nd hit, but good luck finding a) other footage showing this chopper, or b) footage FROM this chopper!
I think the itinerant choppers are damn good evidence that the video footage from 9/11 showing plane hits and building collapses just can't be trusted.
posted by spooked at 8:32 PM
7 Comments:
"How they hid the nuking."
How's that relevant to Sept Clues stuff?
If you watch the video, the idea is that the collapse videos have some element of fakery-- hiding something. Shack even says in the video description that they hid what actually happened to the towers with the video fakery. Nukes can produce flashes that could be hidden.
Can you be more explicit about hiding the nukes or whatever.
Are you you saying, the "collapse" as shown is CGI? Or missing parts? Or what?
Thanks.
I don't *know* exactly what the collapse videos are in terms of fakery vs reality. The Sept Clues video merely shows that there are discrepancies in the collapse/demolition videos indicating fakery. A reasonable assumption is this fakery was used to hide signs of nuking. My guess is the collapse/demolition videos are part real, part CGI.
Thanks.
I thought though you didn't trust Sept Clues or its author.
I can't get myself to watch any more of his stuff.
The last I saw, a now-defunct intel agent's forum had one of its last posts decry the utter joy of love or lust between the author of that video series with another "911 truther" in some fancy Italian villa.
I'm glad, so to speak, for these 2 guys, if they found love or whatever, but them proclaiming it at a "truth forum" says a lot about them, and their work. So I can't take any of it seriously, and for many other reasons as well.
But I have always believed the "collapse" videos are all cut short, because hiding the nukes at the end was apparently impossible, so they simply never show the last seconds of "collapse." With one exception of so much glow that the CBS camera pans away to the right of what they are purporting to want to show.
@10:47
""I can't get myself to watch any more of his stuff....
So I can't take any of it seriously, and for many other reasons as well.""
i think that his various analyses speaks for itself and if you have an issue with any specific analyses of the 'september clues' series then you should address that specifically rather than dismissing out of hand the entirety of it as you seem to be doing here.
It is the failure of the official versions of events to explain simple facts that gives those with an enquiring mind the right to question the validity of those explanations.
For instance:
1. The appearance of the helicopter at about 0:47 - 10 seconds after the fireball - in the "WTC The First 24 Hours" clip clearly provides space to argue that this clip portrays a different event - real or imaginary - to the "Hezarkhani" (and other) 2nd hit footage.
2. The discrepancies between the size of the aircraft parts 'found' in Church St, and the Pentagon with the size of similar parts found on 757/767 airliners clearly provides space to argue what impacted WTC1 and WTC2 and the Pentagon.
3. The failure to satisfactorily explain how for the first, second and third times in recorded history - and within a period of about 8 hours - fire so completely destroyed 3 massive steel framed buildings that the only remaining pieces were effectively ready to be trucked away clearly provides space to argue the mechanism of building destruction. (One also has to wonder about the safety of using steel frame construction in the new tower if fire can indeed reduce such structures to rubble despite sprinklers and fire proofing)
If the nay-sayers and critics of alternative explanations spent as much time and energy explaining the original discrepancies as they do generating criticism, maybe we would all have an accurate understanding of what actually transpired.
Post a Comment
<< Home