Jimmy Walter Presents 9/11 TV Fakery Evidence in LA

[Wokeman]

http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2006/06/jimmy-walter-presents-911-tv-f akery.html

[kookomula]

I've read a slightly different account and explanation why the room went quiet - because they couldn't believe what they were hearing!

[paul wright]

The no-planes idea is one of common sense and simple observation and a feeling for Newtons third law of motion
As soon as the big boys get it it's time to draw away from the notion, cos then the amassed numbheads will never understand

[TimmyG]

this is madness. i'm dissapointed in jimmy walter and morgan reynolds for descrediting the movement. its good to stay open minded. but you don't have to do much research before concluding that the planes were not faked.

All the amateur videos out there. and all the ones from news channels would have to had been created very quickly using video footage from the day so as to match up with other people and objects in the vicinity. there would surely be some amateur footage which would have surfaced showing no planes and/or a mismatch of surroundings at the time.

not to mention the eye witness accounts from the day.

and this is all besides the unlikeliness of them having the capabilities of producing so many many different pieces of CGId footage. much easier to fly actual planes or drones into the building

[kookomula]

"As soon as the big boys get it it's time to draw away from the notion, cos then the amassed numbheads will never understand"

Could you expand on this?

[paul wright]

[kookomula]

I was just wondering if you thought those kind of light tricks were possible. Either I am not enlightened or my feet or planted too firmly to the ground. Anyway...

[kookomula]

Rosalee told me that Gerard and her friends no longer believe it was a hologram, and that they now believe it was all done in the ersatz movie studio of a flight simulator, and then that footage was somehow transmitted to the TV networks....

http://www.warfolly.com/kaminski/agents.html

That's it for me on the subject.

[ian neal]

I haven't looked in to the TV fakery angle enough to form a strong or informed opinion of whether it is actually true or not. Given all the other mind boggling implications of the 9/11 truth evidence, I don't dismiss the possibility entirely although there would be some contradictory evidence of such as eye-witnesses of the plane crashes, etc that would need explaining away so I doubt this will ever be a strong angle.

I just hope that this issue doesn't divide the movement as other controversial angles (eg pods, etc) have in the past. Perhaps the real lesson from past falling outs is that we should be mature enough not to feel the need to agree about every last detail or to see a disinformation agent behind everyone who disagrees with our own individual take. Kaminski's article is a good take on this

Whether you think Jimmy is right to present this angle at such a prominent event really depends on what people understand the purpose of events such as LA to be. Is it to present the latest angles or is it to present the strongest case possible? Is it to endlessly repeat and repackage the same evidence that makes up the core of the 9/11 truth evidence or is it to push and test the boundaries of what we know, even if this means getting it wrong sometimes?

Given that 9/11 truth movement is still under the radar of most americans and the world at large, the primary purpose of large 9/11 truth gatherings still has to be presenting the best case for 9/11 truth to a largely uninformed public even if it does mean repeating the core evidence we have all heard many times before.

Within any 9/11 truth gathering there should be space to explore controversial and/or emerging angles on the evidence, but in presenting the evidence it should always be acknowledged that they are controversial and/or emerging angles

There is a need for the 9/11 truth movement to unify around its strongest case. The evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job" is overwhelming IMO and there are many many angles that can be taken to present this evidence, but the TV fakery evidence must be presented carefully and acknowledged to be controversial within the movement if we are to avoid schisms over details of the evidence that have happened previously.

[Ally]

How do you explain the fact that on Sept 12 2001 Channel 4 news screened this footage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDNcjxFoAkk

And BBC1 screened this footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MnCPxwKoY

However they both have exactly the same soundtrack of a women screaming in a high pitched voice, "Oh my God, oh my God...."

How is this possible, why would news room editors supplant the soundtrack of one plane hit to another?
Maybe they just wanted to increase the power of the footage or maybe it was manufactured by the same perps and they hope we are too stupid to notice identical soundtracks.
I'm happy to send anyone my footage. Let me kno.

[James C]

[Ally]

I am unable to watch the two clips but posted them as knew what they were showing. So I don't actually know the soundtrack on the two things above but I'm more than happy to send you footage I've got from 12/9 to prove my point. that is all.

[TimmyG]

the thing is. this tv fakery thing is dangerous route to follow. If they have faked it (and i doubt they have) they have done a very job and i don't think any member of the public is going to 'expose' the lies from this angle as it were.

It's also dangerous because where do you draw the line with this way of thinking? I could argue that the towers never collapsed atall and everyone in new york is in on it. I could argue that bush doesn't exist atall and is entirely cgi..
at the end of the day nothing is proveable 100% apart from the existance of my own consciousness. everything else is probabilties. And looking at the evidence, the image fakery thing has a very very low probability indeed so we should leave it at that.

[Ally]

[Banish]

I have being taking abuse about the fake planes since day one, coz thats when I spotted it. There are people who believe in pods and *, how come they have kudos?

The only thing for sure is that the buildings were demolished to start a war with no end.

[catfish]

I think this forum gets it's knickers in a twist sometimes. People don't come to this forum to find out about 9/11; they come here because they've already found out about 9/11.
If we're all in agreement that the events of that day were not commited by arabs, perhaps we can discuss other theories without fear of scaring off Johnny public 'cos he thinks we're crazy.
Anyone who says they know for sure what happened that day is a liar, and anyone who calls others a crackpot for presenting new evidence is not helping.
I personally think there is a very real possibility that CGI or even hologram projectors were used, however I'm not going to mention that to a sheeple on the street.
I feel as though everyone on this forum should be tolerant of discussion in these threads because their pointing fingers and calling people crazy is exactly the same as the response most on this site are complaining of from the general public.
If all you can say is "that's crazy, shut up" then you may as well not join the discussion. Thanks.

[Sinclair]

After watching Who Killed John O'Neill, I browsed to this DU thread, which links to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a ddress=125x92675

The DU thread is worth reading as it charts the evolution of some very current research following some of the topics/connections referenced in the Who Killed John O'Neill film -i.e. (as summed up by DrDebug):

The movie and the discussion is about much more:

Indentified groups:

AIG as Money Laundering Inc.
Marsh as Terrorism Inc.
Kroll as the privatized CIA Inc.
al-Cokeda as the drug dealers in the flight school who are later called terrorists in the OCT.

Ownership:

American International Group = Maurice "Hank" Greenberg
Marsh & McLennan = Jeffrey Greenberg
Ace = Evan Greenberg (not featured in the story thus far)
al-Cokeda probably run by Adnan Khashoggi

Kroll always had AIG as shareholder and is currently part of Marsh.

Possible teams for 9/11:

October 11, 2001 Marsh established specialized terrorism team called Marsh Crisis Consultancy
The following teams were added to it: Control Risks Group, a British ex-SAS team and Versar homeland defense team. The same group could have known each other from 9/11

Kroll has military team in their company and merged with Armor Holdings on August 23rd thus adding Defence Systems Limited, another Private Military Corporation, to their operations, an ex-KGB team called Alpha Firm was earlier acquired by Defence Systems Limited.

That makes at least four teams which could have been used on 9/11.
Additional teams from the military could have been used as well.

They had the means to do this.

* Marsh had full control on WTC1 where they occupied all floors.
* Marsh had the top floor of the WTC2 "impact" and could have worked their way down, however the main occupant was Fuji bank with whom AIG did a lot of work and also featured in Iran- Contra.
* WTC7 contained a CIA office and Kroll and AIG are very closely related to the CIA and it is very likely that Kroll is the privatized version of the CIA The Pentagon was of course under their own control.

They had the opportunity to do this.

* AIG/Kroll/Marsh are closely connected to the Bush administration, to Henry Kissinger.
* AIG/Kroll/Marsh are also closely related to the Intelligence Community.
* AIG/Kroll/Marsh capitalized on 9/11 and it was good for their business.
* AIG was laundering drug money for al-Cokeda.
* AIG was involved in the oil and gas line to Afghanistan
* There is reason to believe that the Taliban either cut back on the drug trade or that they went into business for themselves. Either way the flow of heroin from Afghanistan was drastically limited.
* Greenberg and Khashoggi had a business relation and benefited for the narcotics from Afghanistan
and had interest in the oil and gas line as well

They had motive to do this.

==============

interestingly the Who Killed John O'Neill film & the DU thread discussion hardly mention the physical evidence, i.e. planes etc., as the connections/monkey business that are postulated do not depend on HOW the towers were hit (i.e. by planes or not), rather they concentrate on WHERE they were hit & the HOW the opportunity was there to pre-rig the WTC(1) structure: i.e.

Who needs aplane?

Now I have never though deeply about the NO PLANE situation, & it troubles me a bit (mostly because this position would be an even harder concept to relay to 911truth unaware people).

The thing with the videos of physical evidence (& there are a couple of Youtube links to strange plane videos on the DU Thread), is that you can argue till the cows come home.

With the financial/networking/privatised CIA connections, links some links (at least) can be verified and established. Some of this evidence relates to companies involved in risk management (certain companies had only minimal losses of personnel while other companies (competitors) lost almost their whole staff - Euro Brokers lost 61 of 65 employees and was located on 84th floor of WTC2, right in the middle of the impact area.
Four employees including the vice president took the stairs downwards even though they were advised not to go down any further because the floors were on fire. They say that they survived by ignoring advice. ).
There was also a risk managemangement conference on the 106th Floor of one of the towers on the morning of Sep 11th. Have a read yourself.....

I would urge folks to watch the WKJO fils & to study the DU thread ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a ddress=125x92675 ), The film-maker of WKJO , Ty Rauber even contributes to the DU thread.

I have still not come to any conclusions about no planes (but the Naudet film is terribly convenient -& some say a plant), but think of this: IF IT WAS REVEALED THAT THERE WERE NO PLANES, THEN IT DEFINETLY WOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

A lot of the pods/flashes/no civilian colours issues to do with the planes are just little chunks of info which are disseminated into the 911 truth arena, for attention to be diverted away from where the real answers lie.

It is good that this new line of research is opening up, although I agree with Ian that there should be unification behind ALL 911 truthers, in order to garner more support for the cause of revealing that it was an engineered inside job, used to advance an oligarchic agenda.

[sonic]

Banish said "The only thing for sure is that the buildings were demolished to start a war with no end" and that's where we should surely maintain our focus (on surety).

Peace

Sonic

[kookomula]

Catfish, man, I was just starting to like you.

Hologram enthusiasts in my opinion are pains in the butts. Joe public are the people we have to get on our side without them we're gonna be tapping away here for the next few years.

We need to be a little sensible here.

[Mal Jones]

Could someone please give me potted explanation of this 'fake planes, hologram, cgi' malarkey? I'd only just got my head around the demolition thing and I could do with being brought (concisely) up to speed on this additional theory. Sounds a bit 'Donnie Darko' to me.

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

Recent Jimmy interview from Japan

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/jimmy-walter-interview-and.html

[catfish]