| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: Video Fakery / Jim Fetzer |
 |
|
I have no time whatsoever for the DEW/beamery he favours, but re video fakery I totally agree:
1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of the Boeing "shaker system" has explained, in the video entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed", which is archived at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY . While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving.
(2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as early critics and late--from the Web Fairy to Morgan Reynolds--have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.
(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By
most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions. Joe's argument has been archived here: <http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=joes_law>.
(4) Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete in the form of the "cut outs" that subsequently appear at the time they were allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there. A study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut out in the North Tower. Indeed, an extension of the right wing's cut out was even "penciled in". Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur, Part 2", which can be found at the following URL: <http://www.revver.com/video/605306/911-amateur-part-2/> . Presumably, the same technique was employed to create the cut out images in the South Tower as well.
(5) The same student of the videos has examines the Evan Fairbank's footage and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the same smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of the shot and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his teeth. He claims he saw a "white flash" and was able to determine it was a jet. But the time line is so brief that this explanation appears to be a complete fabrication. View this study at "9/11 9/11 Amateur, Part 3", http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/F586F3EE9BE7495495FB5CD4F F410045/911-amateur-part3new.aspx. Killtown has now
extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video, as you can see in the very first image currently archived on his site, killtown.blkogspot.com.
Who amongst you would like to debunk this stuff? Be my guest.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this is just the same old stuff that has already been debunked - over and over again.
try reading through some old threads.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: Re: Video Fakery / Jim Fetzer |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | I have no time whatsoever for the DEW/beamery he favours, but re video fakery I totally agree:
1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of the Boeing "shaker system" has explained, in the video entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed", which is archived at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY . While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving. |
Firstly, you might check out Joseph Keith and what he actually was. He may have worked for Boeing but despite what you've been led to believe, here's a hint: he's not an aero engineer.
Secondly, the Flight 175 horizontal run-in at approx 1000ft. was for about a mile after descending (read:diving) from altitude.
Thirdly, unless you think they were also 'in on it' I daresay the bods at RAE know a bit about aviation and might comment that the speed was 'impossible' were it really so.
| outsider wrote: | | (2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as early critics and late--from the Web Fairy to Morgan Reynolds--have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.. |
The same old misinterpreting of video imagery gets raked up again.
The WTC facia is not a solid surface, it's a giant shredder. You're assuming the plane enters in large pieces, rather than a cloud of debris disintegrated by 3.4 MJ worth of momentum. Oh, and decelleration (about 10-15%) was detected, if you check out the relevant Journal of 911 Studies.
| outsider wrote: | | (3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions. Joe's argument has been archived here: <http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=joes_law>. |
Gotta love these Newton's Law quoters. Personally I hope they allow capital punishment for the jokers who have so misused them when the time comes.
| outsider wrote: | | (4) Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete in the form of the "cut outs" that subsequently appear at the time they were allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there. A study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut out in the North Tower. Indeed, an extension of the right wing's cut out was even "penciled in". Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur, Part 2", which can be found at the following URL: <http://www.revver.com/video/605306/911-amateur-part-2/> . Presumably, the same technique was employed to create the cut out images in the South Tower as well. |
If you fall for the simplistic misdirection of a clown like Simon Shack, I fear for what effect the professionals in government and the
media might have on you, really I do.
See Shack's nonsensical 'painted in' rubbish examined and ripped apart in this thread: http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13099
| outsider wrote: | 5) The same student of the videos has examines the Evan Fairbank's footage and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the same smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of the shot and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his teeth. He claims he saw a "white flash" and was able to determine it was a jet. But the time line is so brief that this explanation appears to be a complete fabrication. View this study at "9/11 9/11 Amateur, Part 3", http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/F586F3EE9BE7495495FB5CD4F F410045/911-amateur-part3new.aspx. Killtown has now
extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video, as you can see in the very first image currently archived on his site, killtown.blkogspot.com.
Who amongst you would like to debunk this stuff? Be my guest. |
Yawn - one word - momentum (or inertia, if you're a traditionalist) though I suspect both will be equally meaningless to you. And it's perfectly possible for people to form an impression from even a fleeting glimpse, even if they might not have the details down pat.
And now I'd request that you sit back and contemplate the sheer volume of semi-baked and barely plausible nonsense that is NPT/TVF and the myriad web sites and pages devoted to it and ask yourself - where does all that time and finance for making all those mis-directing videos come from?
The only positive thing that can be said about NPT/TVF is that it siphoned off most (but maybe not enough) of the headbangers to Shillklown's comedy 911 site.
Which is a bit like a site where the blind discuss paintings, and about as useful.
As gruts says, all these 'issues' have been discussed before.
You just have to search this section to see.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Video Fakery / Jim Fetzer |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | | I have no time whatsoever |
That is how it should be.
If Fetzer says it is probably a distortion. The man lives the axiom "Even if true I would not say it."
Your problem is following pixel pickers and there is a problem there. Working with bogus evidence in the first place.
Fetzer has admitted to, and agrees, that altering evidence is okay as long as the agenda is "ours". Ours meaning the 911 truth as he may see it on any particular day - he wavers like a jello ball and has the backbone of a jelly fish.
When faced with a lie and a fraud Fetzer has called it a "retrospective fallacy," something you find out later is wrong. Because he has no problems altering reality to suit what he perceives (on any given day) to be truth his credo is a retrospective fallacy. He will accept lies as facts, pontificate on them and when proved to be a fraud he will call it a retrospective fallacy even though he may create the fraud. Surely the creator would understand they created a fraud?
Not really for Fetzer. Creating frauds to prove the truth is entirely acceptable. If space beams or hover craft are needed he can surely manufacture and conjure them up as reality.
Never hook your coat tails to a star.
As far as video fakery? It is all fake my man. There is nothing real out there. I looked at it all. All of it is at least 5th generation vhs or worse encoded files made from files encoded! I happen to have a Sony 3ccd professionally recorded digital video of the destruction of the towers. I have not only seen how badly it ends up on the Internet or encoded, I have seen the destruction, alteration, additions, and subterfuge that surrounded it as it got in the hands of "truthers."
Birds become rockets fired from buildings or helicopters when encoded on the net. I watched the original carefully as a distant helicopter went by a cloud and how the pixels wrapped around a cloud and understood how easily it is to be faked out.
Someone sent me a video that was clearly altered to show some smudge arching between the towers. What the hell do these people get out of putting junk into videos? I don’t know.
I think the biggest problem is you have no originals and are claiming fakery using bogus evidence - REALLY bogus when it is several generations and encoded. It is bs.
On the other hand the recent BBC building seven promotion for spare change 5 had the video where the second plane WAS diving into the trade center.
And on the last hand they don't care. Fetzer is doing his job keeping you busy and divisions alive. You have to defend and protect something and choose something. Rather than actually effecting what is going on around you have been taken into an economic bubble so the enslavement is not noticed. Will you be voting for Tony Blair for the first EU president or is that an appointment?
You see, if I want to really rob you blind? Well, I would rob your living room and ring the alarm. I would have you in there figuring it all out. While you were doing that I would take everything from the other rooms and even the house - you would be so busy arguing how the living room was burgled you would never even notice the rape upstairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: Video Fakery / Jim Fetzer |
|
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | outsider wrote: | | I have no time whatsoever |
That is how it should be.
If Fetzer says it is probably a distortion. The man lives the axiom "Even if true I would not say it."
Your problem is following pixel pickers and there is a problem there. Working with bogus evidence in the first place.
Fetzer has admitted to, and agrees, that altering evidence is okay as long as the agenda is "ours". Ours meaning the 911 truth as he may see it on any particular day - he wavers like a jello ball and has the backbone of a jelly fish.
When faced with a lie and a fraud Fetzer has called it a "retrospective fallacy," something you find out later is wrong. Because he has no problems altering reality to suit what he perceives (on any given day) to be truth his credo is a retrospective fallacy. He will accept lies as facts, pontificate on them and when proved to be a fraud he will call it a retrospective fallacy even though he may create the fraud. Surely the creator would understand they created a fraud?
Not really for Fetzer. Creating frauds to prove the truth is entirely acceptable. If space beams or hover craft are needed he can surely manufacture and conjure them up as reality.
Never hook your coat tails to a star.
As far as video fakery? It is all fake my man. There is nothing real out there. I looked at it all. All of it is at least 5th generation vhs or worse encoded files made from files encoded! I happen to have a Sony 3ccd professionally recorded digital video of the destruction of the towers. I have not only seen how badly it ends up on the Internet or encoded, I have seen the destruction, alteration, additions, and subterfuge that surrounded it as it got in the hands of "truthers."
Birds become rockets fired from buildings or helicopters when encoded on the net. I watched the original carefully as a distant helicopter went by a cloud and how the pixels wrapped around a cloud and understood how easily it is to be faked out.
Someone sent me a video that was clearly altered to show some smudge arching between the towers. What the hell do these people get out of putting junk into videos? I don’t know.
I think the biggest problem is you have no originals and are claiming fakery using bogus evidence - REALLY bogus when it is several generations and encoded. It is bs.
On the other hand the recent BBC building seven promotion for spare change 5 had the video where the second plane WAS diving into the trade center.
And on the last hand they don't care. Fetzer is doing his job keeping you busy and divisions alive. You have to defend and protect something and choose something. Rather than actually effecting what is going on around you have been taken into an economic bubble so the enslavement is not noticed. Will you be voting for Tony Blair for the first EU president or is that an appointment?
You see, if I want to really rob you blind? Well, I would rob your living room and ring the alarm. I would have you in there figuring it all out. While you were doing that I would take everything from the other rooms and even the house - you would be so busy arguing how the living room was burgled you would never even notice the rape upstairs. |
Well theres the day Rick: you and me in complete agreement
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have no time whatsoever for the DEW/beamery he favours, but re video fakery I totally agree: |
Interesting, in that being genorous I would have more time for "DEW" or another form of energy to pulverise concrete to dust (in association with thermite or similar) than video fakery.
It would be an interesting survey to find out how many got into or turned away from 911 truth because of video fakery/ no planes at WTCs.
maybe it doesnt matter if it gets people interested who then do enough research to see the Official line to be wrong. I got into 911 truth ref no plane at Pentagon stuff.
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fish5133 wrote: |
It would be an interesting survey to find out how many got into or turned away from 911 truth because of video fakery/ no planes at WTCs.
. |
I got turned away after meeting Steven jones, being asked by Alex to edit out the helicopters, then screaming about Sofia 911 Mysteries editing out helicopters while putting in new explosions and sound effects, bringing it to the leaders attention to be told - "it is the best we have, shut up"
Maybe when the national 911truth coord asked me to not expose the people threatening me with a beating in DC or face total banning in the movement. Notice that worked actually - nifty.
Maybe the money bribes to not go to DC on Sept 11, 2006?
I dunno, the lies that come up are astounding. The agendas amazing. in there is truth, but around it is a hard shell of dried donkey caca from many a donkey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dallas
Validated Poster
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Location: NYC/Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | fish5133 wrote: |
It would be an interesting survey to find out how many got into or turned away from 911 truth because of video fakery/ no planes at WTCs.
. |
I got turned away after meeting Steven jones, being asked by Alex to edit out the helicopters, then screaming about Sofia 911 Mysteries editing out helicopters while putting in new explosions and sound effects, bringing it to the leaders attention to be told - "it is the best we have, shut up"
Maybe when the national 911truth coord asked me to not expose the people threatening me with a beating in DC or face total banning in the movement. Notice that worked actually - nifty.
Maybe the money bribes to not go to DC on Sept 11, 2006?
I dunno, the lies that come up are astounding. The agendas amazing. in there is truth, but around it is a hard shell of dried donkey caca from many a donkey. |
Alex as in Jones? Asked you to edit your live footage of 911? When and why?
_________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776!
-Alex Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Alex as in Jones? Asked you to edit your live footage of 911? When and why? |
Please tell more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen wrote: | | Quote: | | Alex as in Jones? Asked you to edit your live footage of 911? When and why? |
Please tell more. |
Though I won't engage 'witness' directly, I suspect the 'editing' asked for was to remove the voice-over of 'there's another one' etc about the helicopters; I never did understand why he was cracking on so much about the helicopters from the beginning.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | | Stephen wrote: | | Quote: | | Alex as in Jones? Asked you to edit your live footage of 911? When and why? |
Please tell more. |
Though I won't engage 'witness' directly, I suspect the 'editing' asked for was to remove the voice-over of 'there's another one' etc about the helicopters; I never did understand why he was cracking on so much about the helicopters from the beginning. |
Typical 911 truther bs derivative there outsider. You are the weakest link.
Let's see, Chicago truther convention just before his big LA Scholars gig. He is inviting me and lets see if I can get this exact. "Bring your video but can you edit out the helicopters?" I stood a very pregnant moment in a bit of overall shock and asked, "How do I do that?" To which he responds, "Well if you can't really erase them can you just dull them out or cut the scene? Charlie doesn't like the helicopters but he likes your film." I replied I would see if we could make a special cut.
Now it gets even more interesting as Dave Shaw of Blue Star media goes off to make this special cut for the LA show that will not feature the helicopters. What he came up with blew the whole audience and took me down from the speaker’s podium. At one point watching this new cut I had Alex Jones run in to scream in my left ear how I * him and Dave telling me in my left ear (at Jones) don't worry about it. Alex Jones never talked to me again after LA. About me yes. Respond to email or talk to me, no. Dave and Blue Star continued to screw me in so many ways it will all come out after the 9-11 Mysteries case is exposed.
This is far from the first time I have posted about the Jones request.
If you want the info on my personal meetings with the other Jones, professor Steven Earl Jones, then I could give you some strange tales also. I actually physically meet these people and interact before I make these statements. They are not supposition/assumptive hogwash as you did above here but my own real experience. Not he said that she told him, that his cousin heard from the plumbers’ wife who was fixing the sink that he said.
OUTSIDER
As for your idiotic lack of understanding of the helicopters there is no doubt. One could wonder how you get your shoes tied too. However since your lack of any other understanding of anything that day is also part of your lacks this is no problem. They were there, that is all, and it is the mooooovement that makes a big deal out of them. I filmed them that day because they were there, Dave Shaw, you, Jones make big deals out of them.
The pilot died of radiation cancer 2 years later so I could not interview him. You may be too stupid to care about details like the helicopters but in a real investigation everything is tracked and detailed. Why omit them? Because some idiot poster in a forum can’t understand what they might or might not have been doing? You are not fit to arbitrate a cat fight.
For those to care to hear from the witness' own mough my feelings that day on the helicopter:
I saw the helicopter hover over the building and below were several people hanging out the windows waving their shirts. The helicopter circled I thought looking where to land or pick up people. The door was open and I could see a flight suited helmeted guy hanging in there with a roped winch hook up. I used binoculars to see this while the camera recorded on tripod and radio was playing the news. I no longer was watching as I thought I would zoom in for the first rescue operation. In the video now I saw the helicopter came around and headed off as the the building blew out like a roman candle in spewing debris on the Winter Garden I am happy I have the tape to show it all or most of you * would say there were no helicopters and no planes. Sofia erased them you know! Stuffed in new explosions in new places to make it more documentary and less evidence she claims. 911 truth has less truth than most truth I ever knew and from every facet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:25 am Post subject: Bitter |
|
|
I still think 9/11 Mysteries is a good video and as for Sofia I think she’s cute! Rick, can’t you loosen up a bit? I think you are an honest man but few people are going to want to engage with you while you come across so bitter and upset with individuals.
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| truthseeker john wrote: | On this vid the soundtrack has been changed
expose the 9/11 lie. |
Exactly John. The video was taken, abused, changed and still attributed.
The story was changed and you see it too. That is one of three done to my videos out of 38 seconds John.
You see the intentional change is so subtle as to almost not be noticed even you can't see it yet the story changes. It changes again later. Please read the whole list of resampling, modifications, alterations and obfuscations at the website. http://www.911researchers.com/node/114 which does not include the erased helicopters.
Why do you think she erased the passing helicopters?
I am sure all that is OK with you because bottom line she said "Inside Job" but that does not change the intentional editing (there is no mistake in stripping out a sound track and putting in another - you do it on purpose) or erase flying aircraft and use it as evidence.
John, you have to do better than platitudes and the rip off queen herself should bat for herself. Since she hid for 2 years behind lawyers I shall take her to the courts where we can read 911 truth into the system. A victory in itself.
Regretfully every copy of 911-Mysteries will be removed from Google and Youtube while the case goes on, that is just how it goes. Perhaps she should have acted like a human when caught in her lies and fessed up to me? Ahh, nah, better to do this.
This is not just about some stupid video theft, it is about the alteration of evidence and attaching that alteration to my name. It is about truth not lies and coverups in 911truth. Mistake my but, I do video editing and the courts will not have the myopia you have. I will get a fair judgement there based on the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: | On this vid the soundtrack has been changed
expose the 9/11 lie. |
Exactly John. The video was taken, abused, changed and still attributed. |
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | This is not just about some stupid video theft, it is about the alteration of evidence and attaching that alteration to my name. |
Tell you what I think you are doing wrong Rick. You have a great passion for detail and that can be good in itself - but you are looking too much at yourself for your passion to be productive. You are sensitive and have let yourself become angry but this puts you at odds with people.
I am sensitive too and when I saw your video and the way you felt, I had tears in my eyes... but I am not as much angry because it doesn't work, it doesn't win people over and I want to get the truth across. I can get angry of course and I do but I have to let it go, otherwise I will achieve nothing that's good.
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| truthseeker john wrote: | | 911Eyewitness wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: | On this vid the soundtrack has been changed
expose the 9/11 lie. |
Exactly John. The video was taken, abused, changed and still attributed. |
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | This is not just about some stupid video theft, it is about the alteration of evidence and attaching that alteration to my name. |
I want to get the truth across. . |
so do I and that is why i must carry on. We bring the whole bag of shells into a court. Can't ask for more. There is no more fair way to get to the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
