An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how

[Heiwa]

Are you aware that there are over 40 different camera angles of the second aircraft impact? All shot from different vantage points on different cameras by different people, some professional news cameramen, the rest private individuals.

Some of us back then spent the better part of 9/11 and the next two days doing little else but watching the news. Like me, for example. I flipped around between TV networks constantly looking for new reports and updated information. I saw many, many different angles of the jet impacts played on different networks, with these images being replayed often. My roster of networks watched included both U.S. and non-U.S. networks.

There was no video fakery. It's a non-starter. If you're going to claim the 9/11 jet footage was faked then you might as well claim all the Apollo footage of astronauts on the moon was faked too, because both notions have about an equal chance of being true (which is to say zero chance).

Study 'socialservice' analysis again (all six parts) where he/she claims video fakery in the live show of WTC2. What you the saw the next days were probably some variations of the same thing. Only later have all these amateur films appeared to confirm the 'live' WTC2 show, i.e. with plenty of time to fake those too.

Note that there is only one explosion/impact of WTC2 and it must look the same on all alleged photages. If it doesn't something is strange.

Maybe you were deceived?

 

[GlennB]

Study 'socialservice' analysis again (all six parts) where he/she claims video fakery in the live show of WTC2. What you the saw the next days were probably some variations of the same thing. Only later have all these amateur films appeared to confirm the 'live' WTC2 show, i.e. with plenty of time to fake those too.

Note that there is only one explosion/impact of WTC2 and it must look the same on all alleged photages. If it doesn't something is strange.

Maybe you were deceived?

It does look the same, so nothing is "strange". Meanwhile it matches what thousands of people saw with their own eyes, so you can relax.

p.s. we were talking a while back about your experience as a marine accident investigator/engineer. You never did provide any links to the actual physical investigations you've done, or the marine engineering work you have carried out. Perhaps you were too busy at the time?

 

[Belz...]

I say: "Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all."

Belz... answer #422: "Why do you truthers insist on calling everybody a complete idiot ?"

Yeah. You're basically claiming that everybody who doesn't support your theory is hopelessly and mindlessly wrong, for some reason. Isn't that an idiot ?

It seems that plane parts found on WTC5 could not origin from AA175 or a Boeing 767/200 as the rivets below the windows are in the wrong position.

Right. Sure, Heiwa. Oh, wait. No.

Re Pentagon, I assume it was too difficult to copy/paste a plane into the surveillance videos cutting lamp posts, etc. for them to appear credible ...

And yet they manage to do it REAL-TIME for the WTC ??????666sixhundredsixtysix

so the videos, showing nothing or something else, had to be destroyed.

Speculation.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

'Socialservice' provides links to all sources of his/her analysis.

Then you should have no problems providing links to the verified "before" and "after" material, should you? You came up with the claim here, you prove it.

I've seen for instance the CNN clips from Wayback machine. They have not been edited, they still contain fades. That counters your "theory" and you have so far failed to explain why NWO managed all this videoediting, but still missed that one (Neither, should I perhaps add, have you managed to explain the relevance of these "fades" and "blips").

 

[beachnut]

Study 'socialservice' analysis again (all six parts) where he/she claims video fakery in the live show of WTC2. What you the saw the next days were probably some variations of the same thing. Only later have all these amateur films appeared to confirm the 'live' WTC2 show, i.e. with plenty of time to fake those too.

Note that there is only one explosion/impact of WTC2 and it must look the same on all alleged photages. If it doesn't something is strange.

Maybe you were deceived?

The only strange thing is the fantasy you truth guys make up. This is an insane idea. What a bunch of tripe. No facts, no science, just junk. I have to agree, only idiots pay attention to this stuff, do you agree?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

The only strange thing is the fantasy you truth guys make up. This is an insane idea. What a bunch of tripe. No facts, no science, just junk.

Its not junk! Its a googlievideo, in colour no less! Its the truth I tell you, those pictures are moving!

 

[Heiwa]

Then you should have no problems providing links to the verified "before" and "after" material, should you? You came up with the claim here, you prove it.

I've seen for instance the CNN clips from Wayback machine. They have not been edited, they still contain fades. That counters your "theory" and you have so far failed to explain why NWO managed all this videoediting, but still missed that one (Neither, should I perhaps add, have you managed to explain the relevance of these "fades" and "blips").

?? When I watched the recorded videos of 9/11 on TV after the incidents there were no 'fades' or 'beeps' and I assumed it was true recordings of the earlier 'live' transmissions. And then 5 years later 'socialservice' explains that there were 'fades' and 'beeps' ... and why; the 'live' transmissions were manipulated! It is not my theory! I am just curious what other people think about it. The only answers I get are that I am stupid but it does not explain the 'fades' and 'beeps'.

I have never seen any 'fades' and 'beeps' in any live news transmissions until 'socialservice' pointed it out.

And it is more! The 'plane' penetrates WTC2 south wall and the intact nose exits WTC2 north wall in the live transmission just before the 'Fade to black' message ... and then disappears. What was that? Socialservice suggets sloppy copy/paste. Later we see the north wall - one perimeter column damaged. So how did the nose get out?

 

[beachnut]

?? When I watched the recorded videos of 9/11 on TV after the incidents there were no 'fades' or 'beeps' and I assumed it was true recordings of the earlier 'live' transmissions. And then 5 years later 'socialservice' explains that there were 'fades' and 'beeps' ... and why; the 'live' transmissions were manipulated! It is not my theory! I am just curious what other people think about it. The only answers I get are that I am stupid but it does not explain the 'fades' and 'beeps'.

I have never seen any 'fades' and 'beeps' in any live news transmissions until 'socialservice' pointed it out.

And it is more! The 'plane' penetrates WTC2 south wall and the intact nose exits WTC2 north wall in the live transmission just before the 'Fade to black' message ... and then disappears. What was that? Socialservice suggets sloppy copy/paste. Later we see the north wall - one perimeter column damaged. So how did the nose get out?

You have to use your head. The nose did not exit. The nose of the aircraft is made of plastic, fiberglass. It was destroyed as the aircraft crashed into the building. The people that say the nose exited the building do not have much knowledge or the logical reasoning to figure out anything. Sorry you have fallen for the dumbest ideas on record. You should finish school and stop falling for idiots making up lies about 9/11. Nose, that is funny. Not too smart, but funny as in ha ha, and strange.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

?? When I watched the recorded videos of 9/11 on TV after the incidents there were no 'fades' or 'beeps' and I assumed it was true recordings of the earlier 'live' transmissions.

What you saw or not saw on TV has no relevance to this discussion, unless you can provide us with ample evidence that there is in fact a "before" and "after" version of the live-tv coverage that was aired that day. Which you have so far failed to produce.

Second thing you need to do is to demonstrate what the presence, or non-presence, of these "fades" and "beeps" have to do with anything at all.

Fact is, the CNN coverage contains a "fade". Which means either your claim is faulty, or NWO slipped (and is still slipping for that matter!).

(14:57 into the clip):

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929


There ya go. It blips to black, just as the second plane hits. So, NWO, wake up, you obvious slipped up here. Go edit, before more investigooglers find it. And don't forget to give me an extra bonus for the find.

Interesting part is that your theory is unfalsifiable. Presence of "fades" and "blips"--->proof of tampering, lack of "fades" and "blips" ---> even more proof of tampering.

 

[Corsair 115]

Study 'socialservice' analysis again (all six parts) where he/she claims video fakery in the live show of WTC2. What you the saw the next days were probably some variations of the same thing.

Since it seems your comprehension skills are a little lax, I'll repeat it: OVER 40 DIFFERENT CAMERA ANGLES RECORDED THE SAME EVENT.

Some of these angles appeared later on 9/11; others appeared in the days following as different networks got different angles from different people. I can't recall exactly, but very few of the videos were exclusive; there was for the most part a lot of co-operation between the news networks regarding the sharing of footage.

Only later have all these amateur films appeared to confirm the 'live' WTC2 show, i.e. with plenty of time to fake those too.

See above. Some appeared on CNN, CTV, CBC, NBC, etc., on 9/11, some were first broadcast the next day or the second day after.

Note that there is only one explosion/impact of WTC2 and it must look the same on all alleged photages.

They do, within the context of understanding different camera angles and cameras.

ETA: Then there's all the still photos of the events, and all the eyewitness accounts. Do you still believe in the fantasy of fakery claims?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Since it seems your comprehension skills are a little lax, I'll repeat it: OVER 40 DIFFERENT CAMERA ANGLES RECORDED THE SAME EVENT.

Some of these angles appeared later on 9/11; others appeared in the days following as different networks got different angles from different people. I can't recall exactly, but very few of the videos were exclusive; there was for the most part a lot of co-operation between the news networks regarding the sharing of footage.

See above. Some appeared on CNN, CTV, CBC, NBC, etc., on 9/11, some were first broadcast the next day or the second day after.

They do, within the context of understanding different camera angles and cameras.

ETA: Then there's all the still photos of the events, and all the eyewitness accounts. Do you still believe in the fantasy of fakery claims?

What I want to know is how not a single private or otherwise independant person managed to film or take a picture of the faked 2nd plane impact explosion.

 

[stateofgrace]

Maybe you were deceived?

Other members have addressed what I have snipped out of this post but please allow me.

Heiwa, maybe just maybe you are being deceived, have you ever considered that possibility? Has it ever crossed your mind to apply the same standards of critical thinking you apply to proving some totally unbelievable theory to the claims put forward by the truth movement?

Maybe you should actually give it a shot, just for a moment look, seriously, are what you are suggesting and apply your thinking skills to it.

It as never crossed your mind, that in you desire to have a go at the man, that maybe; just maybe you are being fed a complete load of BS. It is easy to accuse those that try to debunk this rubbish of simply buying into the OCT or being sheep or whatever. But Heiwa, the same standard is applied to you and the movement you support. You simply buy into it; you believe anything that backs up your pre determined conclusions.

You are trying to sell what you believe to the world, not me or anybody here. You will never get off the starting block unless you can seriously analyse everything you are told, in a totally impartial way.

This is why you fail, because you cannot see the deception you are being sold, you cannot see beyond your own wishful thinking and will not apply the same standards to the rubbish promoted by the truth movement.

 

[Belz...]

I have never seen any 'fades' and 'beeps' in any live news transmissions until 'socialservice' pointed it out.

So, what does it all mean ?

The 'plane' penetrates WTC2 south wall and the intact nose exits WTC2 north wall in the live transmission just before the 'Fade to black' message ... and then disappears. What was that?

Certainly not the "nose" of the airplane. You've GOT to stop believing people just because they tell you something, and that applies to everyone.

Socialservice suggets sloppy copy/paste.

You might want to ask that person how come only ignorant people get to notice those things.

 

[Heiwa]

So, what does it all mean ?

You might want to ask that person how come only ignorant people get to notice those things.

So 'socialservice' produces a six parts analysis of the live and recorded transmissions of WTC2 exploding and finds some strange things. Why shouldn't we discuss those?
Is it normal that a live transmission is interrupted by 'Fade to black' messages? And strange beeps? Not where I live. And the coincidence of zooming in before the 'plane' hits. I think 'socialservice' provides some rational explanations. What are wrong with those?
The simple question is: Is it possible to copy/paste in a live transmission as suggested by 'socialservice'?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Is it normal that a live transmission is interrupted by 'Fade to black' messages?

Ignoring the fact that you have ignored most of the replies given to you, how is a black glitch a "message"?

 

[T.A.M.]

SO you are a no-planer as well Heiwa...oh boy...it is worse than I thought.

I am assuming, that "socialservice" is our very own ACE Baker (TS1234).

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Ace's theory, is because when he runs the video frame by frame, he gets 1-2 frames of half grey, half video, then black, that this is irrefutable proof that it was a quick "fade to black" not a drop in signal.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

I am assuming, that "socialservice" is our very own ACE Baker (TS1234).

Ah...there's a special place in the woo woo pantheon reserved for Ace.

 

[Belz...]

So 'socialservice' produces a six parts analysis of the live and recorded transmissions of WTC2 exploding and finds some strange things. Why shouldn't we discuss those?

I didn't say we shouldn't discuss it. I'm asking you why only laypeople with no knowledge of the technologies, techniques, physics or other principles involved seem to "spot" these things.

Is it normal that a live transmission is interrupted by 'Fade to black' messages? And strange beeps? Not where I live.

I wouldn't know. I'm not knowledgeable in this field.

And the coincidence of zooming in before the 'plane' hits.

Question: if it didn't zoom, would you be asking why they had framed the image perfectly before the plane hit ?

I think 'socialservice' provides some rational explanations. What are wrong with those?

If by "rational" you mean "believable", then what's wrong is that they don't correspond to reality.

The simple question is: Is it possible to copy/paste in a live transmission as suggested by 'socialservice'?

No.

 

[Zorglub]

The simple question is: Is it possible to copy/paste in a live transmission as suggested by 'socialservice'?

The simple question is: Is it possible to edit live transmissions and syncronize the copy/paste of a non-existing plane crashing into WTC with the controlled detonation of thousands of gallons secretly hidden jet fuel?

On the other hand, it would be possible to edit the live transmissions and disguise a fire breathing dragon as an ordinary Boeing.