Rick Siegel promotes fake video

defaultdotxbe

Drunken Shikigami
defaultdotxbe
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
7,474
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
grr, how do you embed a google video?
Click to expand...

like this

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


PHP: 
[gv]url[/gv]
 
The thing I like best? He makes the tired old claim that the collapse occured in 10 seconds, and yet the video he posts shows it didn't.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The thing I like best? He makes the tired old claim that the collapse occured in 10 seconds, and yet the video he posts shows it didn't.
Click to expand...

Ironic, given that the 'truthers' are always accusing rational people of believing the US govt/media without question, and yet when it comes to their CT fantasies about 9/11 the 'truthers' either base their beliefs on being told what to see and what to think by some internet film maker, or expect the 'fencesitters' to see what they are told to see in these videos.

It's the same as faces in the smoke. Some people see it and some people don't. If you have to 'enhance' your video presentation to present evidence which you think is plainly visible but other people can't see, then you really should take a step away and reconsider whether the fault lays with your perception, not the viewers.
 
does anyone have an in depth analysis of these explaining which is the real original and why?
 
To be honest, I stopped listening to Siegel after "Pyroclastic Surge" exited his mouth ;)
 
The Doc said:
To be honest, I stopped listening to Siegel after "Pyroclastic Surge" exited his mouth ;)
Click to expand...
yeah,w ell this is the second time in as many weeks that someone has posted this vid on SLCF, and each time when shown the original they respond with "how do you know yours is original and not the edited one?" or something to that effect
 
defaultdotxbe said:
yeah,w ell this is the second time in as many weeks that someone has posted this vid on SLCF, and each time when shown the original they respond with "how do you know yours is original and not the edited one?" or something to that effect
Click to expand...

That can be very frustrating.

The simple fact is, it is a lot easier to add sound to a video as opposed to removing sound from a video.

For example, adding explosions to footage of the collapse of WTC2 would be substantially easier than removing explosions from footage of the collapse of WTC2.

ETA:
Just to clarify :p I am talking about removing specific sounds and adding specific sounds, and not removing the entire audio track ;)
 
defaultdotxbe said:
each time when shown the original they respond with "how do you know yours is original and not the edited one?" or something to that effect
Click to expand...


Even if it wasn’t for what The Doc has said, there’s still a good reason to prefer the explanation that the Siegel video is the one that has been falsified:

  • Believing the Siegel video has been falsified necessitates positing the existence of some boob who mixed in a fake soundtrack.
  • Believing that the other video has been falsified, on the other hand, necessitates positing the existence of explosives in the towers* and, as a result, the existence of large conspiracy.

Which is the more parsimonious?

(I suppose they could both have been falsified, but I'm ignoring that for now.)

* = If, of course, that is how we interpret the sounds in video.
 
It's incredible how far people go to look like they know stuff.
They fake truth so their "truth" can float.
********.
 
Yes, nothing promotes truth so much as fakery and lies!
At least that's what I've heard...
 
I'll have a debunking video up as soon as I get off work.

wait... I'll have a debunking video of this as soon as I get off work, make it, and put it on youtube.
 
at :14 in the Google video, people start screaming. It sounds like it's from a movie or something. Nothing even close to the other sound track.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The thing I like best? He makes the tired old claim that the collapse occured in 10 seconds, and yet the video he posts shows it didn't.
Click to expand...

My stop watch indicates that it is 12 seconds from the time the firemen look up to the point where the camera swings back to show the first debris about to hit the ground. at that point the lower portion of the building is still intact behind the dust.

That puts the lie to anyone who wishes to state that the collapse took less than that.
 
can someone get me those 2 videos in wmv format? Whoever does would rock most awesomely because they are all that I need for my debunking vid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom