Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:39 am Post subject:
Well, I have to say I'm looking forward to the mental contortions September Clues' defenders will have to go through explaining this one.
I suspect the defence will be along the lines of Anthony founded the illuminati or somesuch. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: Exposed!
Exposed!
chek wrote:
Well, I have to say I'm looking forward to the mental contortions September Clues' defenders will have to go through explaining this one.
I suspect the defence will be along the lines of Anthony founded the illuminati or somesuch.
Come on, Chek, now you've given the game away. Next you'll be telling them how I stay as young as I'm not. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: ..and on and on it goes
So...what exactly is the case you're promoting here with these?
Although I do admit that having Simon 'the fraud' Shack accusing others of fraud is mildly, if not wildly, amusing.
The only item-ette worthy of the claim of having any substance, even if only with all the reassuring solidity of cigarette smoke, is the two helicopters which - shock horror! - being from different perspectives are not synchronised in their movement across the screen.
How spooky is that? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: Does that mean I'm wrong?[/
Does that mean I'm wrong?
jfk wrote:
it is a fact of life that not everyone agrees with each other, the tv fakery angle seems to be an issue that is divided.
it seems to me that 'busted' is very busy to completely dis credit 'social'.
the over cynical tone of 'busted' is a weak effort to persuasion.
bbc reporting wtc7 collapse before it did = fakery
7/7 cctv = fakery
bin laden video's = fakery
"...not everyone agrees with each other,..." That's correct, but the issue I have addressed is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. The issue has to do with a clear cut case of someone telling lies, about a serious matter, using video material. I disagree with that; you can't mean that you agree with it, can you?
If the TV fakery issue is divided it is because Simon Shack has deliberately set out to deceive his audience. Doesn't that annoy you, even a little bit? Unless, of course, you still can't see that there is now no case for video fakery, on the part of Fox TV, in the particular and very critical issue of a plane's impact with the South Tower.
You may hear my tone as over cynical, but a lie is a lie, whether verbal, or told by manipulating pictures, and one should be cynical about anything else that a proven liar may try to impress you with. Which is why I haven't got the inclination to look at the videos you’ve attached to your post; I've wasted too much time on this response, already, when I could be debunking more of Shack's cynical lies.
But perhaps what you are really saying is: "I don't like the way that you have shattered this illusion." Or, if you were being more truthful: "I don't like the fact that this illusion has been shattered, because I really wanted to believe in it."
The three items you cite at the end of your post are, of course, totally unrelated to the issue of someone attempting to prove that an aircraft's impact with the South Tower was video fakery. The first one does not even constitute video fakery. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
yet again npt/tvfakery has been proven to be based on misleading evidence that only has one purpose in mind, to fool its audience and believers.
its funny how believers however soon turn up to justify believing the lie by listing unrelated issues and they cannot bring themselves to admit the pieces of evidence shown to be a lie is indeed a lie, or bring themselves to question the credibilitiy of simon shack.
ignoring or discarding evidence that proves wrong claims puts believers in a different league, they are no longer truthseekers searching for truth but believers looking to believe, looking to cling to what they want to be true rather than seeing what is true.
anthony lawson hit the nail right on the head....
Quote:
if you were being more truthful: "I don't like the fact that this illusion has been shattered, because I really wanted to believe in it."
im currently looking into the sumerian history and the culture of the maya more indepth, and you'd be amazed how many people come up with different theorys about what the clues mean that they left behind, so all information is the same lots of smoke and mirrors that needs patient and truthful research, sure i'd like to believe certain things but if i did without being truthful and whilst ignoring all the evidence that goes against what i want to believe would mean only one thing. i'd be lieing to myself and basically shafting myself, no one else just me. its the same with all information. so i encourage truthful npt believers to admit the nose out evidence is weak and has been proven to be misleading, theres no shame in being true to yourself, rather than letting ego and pride direct your judgements.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: Censoring fair comment
Censoring fair comment
Quote:
here's more for 'busted' to get it’s teeth into foxed out parts 1 & 2
by social service
Ah, yes, but one can't properly get one's teeth into anything, if the Comments sections have been blocked, as they have on the two videos you have posted.
I earlier posted my video, as a comment—which Shack has done with his two, on "9/11: The Great Nose In -- Nose Out Hoax" and which I will not delete—but mine did not come up in his Comments section, and the facility to post ANYTHING has been removed.
A man to trust? He hasn’t even responded to my video. So much for someone who invited us to "peer review" his pixel match, on this very subject. Never mind about noses matching, what about feet? Feet of Clay, that is.
In the interests of fairness, why don't you remove your reference to Shack's latest bits of deceptive nonsense? They look more like an ad for what his video-editing application can do, rather than a serious investigation into who was ultimately responsible for the obscenity that was 9/11.
He is selling himself, never a good recommendation for someone who claims to be seeking the truth. Check out the awful blurb accompanying his new outpourings?
People who are deliberately looking in the wrong direction, will never find the culprits, but they will hinder those who are trying to find the right direction.
Why do you continue to aid and abet such appalling methodology? _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Last night I dusted off a video tape I have from the 1 year anniversary.It features some 6 or so hours of commemorative 9/11 tribute shows.
One of them is called 9/11 A tale of Two Towers and has Owen May of The May Davis Group, a business on the 87th floor of the North Tower who wasn't in the building when the "plane struck"...He was on his way to work when it supposedly did.
5 months before 9/11 he filmed inside the offices of the business which he was chairman of. It features the faces of some of the better known survivors.It seems very genuine.
The May Davis group sign was found in the rubble.
Owen May clearly says in the tribute video that he saw the second plane going into the south tower. He thought it was a water carrying plane as he watched it, on it's way to help extinguish flames in the north tower.
Of course he was then surprised to see it smash into the south tower.
There is another survivor who says he saw plane parts in the courtyard where the globe was. He also saw plane seats with bodies still in them smouldering.
Unfortunately I dont have a video to dvd converter so I cant post it up yet. But I do have a vid cam so I'll have to film the tv screen then upload what I capture.
Last edited by Lee on Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Moderators if you dont move this thread to 9/11 controversies within the next hour then I will post ALL my controversial stuff on the general section. Untill you ban me.
You have had nearly 4 hours to move this since I asked you nicely.
This is a abuse of power.
Last edited by Stephen on Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject:
Stephen wrote:
chek wrote:
Stephen wrote:
I've PM'd Ian Neal.
It would have been better if you'd PM'd an actual moderator.
Which one shall I trust ?
I'm not sure I understand question Stephen.
After all, coming from someone who falls for any old
easily exposed lies regarding No Planes/Media Fakery/Space Beams.
Looks to me like you trust any old toss that comes along. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject:
chek wrote:
Well, I have to say I'm looking forward to the mental contortions September Clues' defenders will have to go through explaining this one.
I suspect the defence will be along the lines of Anthony founded the illuminati or somesuch.
Well we found out chek: throwing a hissy fit
Still being as stephen is so concerned that this thread is seen to be in controversies, I reckon stickying it is only fair.... _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:38 pm Post subject: Responses - Various
Responses - Various
GazeboflossUK & marky 54: Thank you for the backup. I cannot think why supposedly rational people don’t want to get at the truth, but wish to cling to a lie, even though it has been shown to be a lie, not just with words, but with the very images which were used to tell the lie in the first place.
Lee: That sounds really interesting.
Quote:
Unfortunately I dont have a video to dvd converter so I cant post it up yet. But I do have a vid cam so I'll have to film the tv screen then upload what I capture.
I’ve done that, successfully, on a couple of occasions. If you need any tips, about capturing the sound, please send me an e-mail; my e-address is on all my videos.
Stephen wrote:
Moderators please move this thread to 9/11 Truth controveries.
Now why would you want them to do that? You’ve recently begun a thread: “South Tower Anomalies III - Addressing the Debunkers” and posted a “September Clues” lookalike of which you say:
Quote:
“This is a good video I feel.”
Clearly, you believe that the issue is important, even though “feelings” shouldn’t come into it, only a cold assessment of the facts. So when someone suggests that there isn’t a plane in sight, you should have checked to see why, because that plane is in sight in far more video clips than it is not a matter of seconds before the South Tower explodes from its obvious impact.
In the video concerned: Was it obscured by another building? or the Twin Towers themselves? or the spreading smoke? or lost in an NTSC to PAL video transfer? Have you asked yourself any of those questions, or would you rather believe that it really wasn’t there?
But what was it doing in those other shots, where it is clearly visible as a plane heading for the Towers? Did someone put it there, as a graphic? What about the eyewitnesses, how could a graphic get onto their retinas? And how did these same graphics get onto the media in so many private video and stills cameras, some of which were shown on the 6:00 o’clock news, or earlier? Can you answer those questions? Or don’t you think that they rate an answer, when some, to you, bigger “mystery” needs explaining?
This latest video is very annoying—even though the maker does not admit to being a no planer— because it does not examine the evidence in an orderly manner, but treats it like material in music video, which I do not feel is appropriate for such a serious matter. Without examining better quality versions of the videos, my first reaction would be to suggest that the author is mistaken about the height of the static camera, which appears to have been on a longer-lens setting than the helicopter camera, and this may be adding confusion as to its height, as well as to what can and what can not be seen in the background.. This could also mean that the helicopter would only need to be a few tens of feet above or to one side of the static camera’s field of view not to be included in its shot. I would also like to know the height above sea level of the buildings involved: the Towers and, almost certainly, the Empire State, rather than how tall they were.
But all that is beside the point, because your post on this thread is asking that it be moved to the “Controversies” (I’m sure you meant) section. But this particular controversy is one of the most important issues of the moment, because it is splitting the truth movement into warring camps, which is almost certainly the aim of some of those who are turning out these no-conclusion, innuendo, misinformation, pop-music-style videos which largely rely on the apparent confusion, within the TV fraternity, caused by the most significant news event in New York’s history as well as in the history of television.
Simon Shack and others are now playing on that confusion and the “borrowing” of video shots by one station from another in a manner which suggests that there was something wrong or inherently criminal about it. They pool their resources when it comes to events like the Olympics, but they have years to plan all that, so why the problem of some confused cross referencing in an attempt to keep the public up to date?
Can anyone prove that any of the TV stations knew what was going to happen? Nobody has, up until now. But with 20/20 hindsight, people like Shack are coming out of the woodwork to try and prove a conspiracy, but he has to fake his own presentation of the one key shot which might have come close to proving his and the other no-planer’s point. And in doing that he has undone himself, and shown that he is a charlatan: willing to sacrifice the truth to suit his own ends.
Have you seen the video linked at the top of this thread? If not, look at it and then get back to me about video fakery. Your view on that video, and no other, is what I would like to have.
* * *
I’ve just seen your threatening posts. You really are exposing yourself as one who does not want the truth to stay up front, aren’t you.
How transparent you are. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject:
So anyway Stephen - do you have any comment on the nose in/nose out that isn't?
And any comment on why socialdisservice would try to trick the easily tricked with cheap trickery? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
so the only responses from tv/fakery/npt believers has been excuses as to why they should cling to the belief whilst avoiding the issue of the thread topic, and one throwing a tantrum and who has not made one comment regarding the thread topic, the rest thus far have avoided the thread all together.
are there any npt/tv fakery believers who are actually honest or truthful or got the balls to admit when something they believe has been disproved, rather than using diversion tactics to avoid the whole issue?
npt/tv fakery theory just in this one thread alone, has proven how much credibility they have(none) and how much truthful information they have(none) to disprove the information that has kindly been put forward to show you all the truth.
the only thing i see on display from tv fakery/npt believers so far(all two of em) is denial from one and with stephen bare faced avoidence and an attitude of...... "i don't care if its been proved wrong, i am going to keep on promoting it and other lies, to convince and mislead people inorder to convince them 9/11 was an inside job by spaming the other sections."
stephen your credibility as a truth teller is now shot, and i reckon most will consider you a liar and a deciever due to your failure to be honest or even comment on the information, i certainly have you down as a liar and someone to ignore due to your response to this information, its so easy to see how you were misled but obviously you knew all along and don't care and are someone who is helping to decieve people by playing dumb to the information or avoiding it 100%.
truth always wins get use to it, tantrums convince nobody, if anything they enforce how wrong you are. otherwise you would'nt need to throw a tantrum, whats that saying again?
Four live shots of the South tower stike are analyzed in a 3D scale model. The CNN, CBS and ABC shots were broadcast live. The NBC clip is from the evening news.
(See "South Tower Anomalies III - Addressing the Debunkers" for more on the NBC shots.)
Camera position, rotation and lens length were simulated by comparing stills against the 3D models. Plane paths were approximated by aligning and matching 3 stills from each video.
The most glaring discepancy is between the CNN shot and the CBS shot. The CNN shot shows the plane impacting the Liberty Street wall, while the CBS shot shows an impact on the West Street wall. One of them must be wrong.
All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Next
Page 1 of 7
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
