woman waving where the plane hit ..TV fakery again

[dry kleaner]

[Andrew Johnson]

[flamesong]

Last night I was at an anarchists bonfire party at which there were fire eaters. I had my camera and tried to capture the most dramatic moment on film (so to speak, it was a digital camera!). There is a period between ignition and optimum fireball of, I'd guess, about 0.2 of a second. That fireball is only expanding to a diameter of around 2 - 3 metres. The fireballs in the second WTC impact expand to something approaching 100 metres.

If you set a trail of petrol on the ground 100 metres long and ignite one end it will take, I approximate, 2 seconds before the far end ignites. OK, so this situation is slightly different, given the different materials and the massive difference in quantities - but this should illustrate that yes, the laws of physics do apply, and the chain reaction - which is what an explosion is - is not one instantaneous event.

[telecasterisation]

Andrew Johnson always writes;

[HERA]

Not my area of expertise but do the damage lines look a little too straight ?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[flamesong]

I do.

And I like the way you use the Pikey line of challenging people to a public píssing contest, i.e. come on then, clever clogs, show us what have you done...

Personally, I think that this is where arguments can clearly seen to have been lost. I don't advertise what campaigning activity I have done - though I have confided much of it to another forum member - because I don't think it adds any weight to the credibility of ones evidence. If anything, it is a tactical digression which dilutes it.

[Andrew Johnson]

[telecasterisation]

Andrew Johnson wrote:

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Telecaster - you remind me of Victor Meldrew

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

Oo 1 other thing....

[flamesong]

[Andrew Johnson]

[flamesong]

Andrew, it was you who first asked somebody to prove themselves by telling you what campaigning they had done. I simply pointed out that I thought that it was a poor tactic. I call it a losers trump card.

I don't normally make personal accusations, though I don't deny that I have been known to rise to the bait - having been accused on here of being many things, including a Freemason and a member of MI5 (in the last few days).

A quick scan of my posts does not throw up any obvious personal accusations - which in itself makes me wonder if you are as thick skinned as you claim.

If you would care to highlight where I have made a personal accusation against you I will apologise.

[Andrew Johnson]

Well, just a final point. Your post above could be interpreted as comparing me to Pikey - I am not bothered whether you think I am like him or not, so you have no need to apologise. The comments I made about evidence are more important here.

However, I freely admit I was playing a tactics game and I will try to explain why I asked TC about his campaiging activities.

I have done this before and it has resulted in certain people "getting the hump" and going into "insult mode". I do it as a way of trying to "suss people out" for myself.

(Sorry to everyone for digressing so badly here, but I wanted to explain my thinking here and why it I feel it was relevant to this thread)

It has more or less been admitted that we do have characters posting here who are actively trying to derail our campaign. Here's what I think is an example:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16369#16369

Also, IronSnot became rude, abusive and "left" shortly after

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=31506&highlight=#315 06

Minimauve became quite defensive when I asked him about campaigning - my point being this site is entitled "The British 9/11 Truth Campaign" not the "The British 9/11 Evidence Debating" forum.

It was also commented about other evidence-based topics I have posted about - IronSnot chose that particular route. And yes - they have been only tangentially related to 9/11, so "guilty as charged" on that point (but I feel they are generally of huge importance too).

But I am sure people are bored of reading this now, so ttfn.

[telecasterisation]

[Ally]

[quote]WHAT THE MOVEMENT HAS DONE WAS TRADE REALITY and AUTHENTICITY FOR A SHARPER AND MORE DECEPTIVE SUBSTITUTE!!!!
-----------

"MIND THE GAP!"

Essentially, "mind the gap", means "look at the gap." .....and so it is here as well. Remember that. Here is the original that spelled the doom of real the clip that was shown that day, or the doom of a notion that a real plane took part. Remember to mind the gap......


THIS IS WHAT GETS CNN TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY.

This was shown between 9:03am and 10:00am. on 9/11. This what we all saw--rough, engine drooping, but plenty good enough to deceive us, if shown at full speed. Which is what we saw that morning. First you see just as you did that morning, and then look again at the same clip in slow motion, and extremely enlarged, and now you'll understand everything.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/newjetcrash.htm

Now the extreme enlargement. {give it time to d/l] Watch it 10-20-100 times.....IT'S IN A LOOP..... and "mind the Gap".

http://www.gallerize.com/Videos/CNN_Brooklyn_Heights.swf

Where does the "plane" go? Is there any movement AT ALL in the pixels to the right of the green spire? Could the plane have gone into the green spire instead of the bldg? There should be a 25% deceleration upon contact with anything.........but the disappearing tail is going just as fast, the same speed whether there was a bldg. there or if there was nothing there to stop it!

No deceleration.
No pieces of debris.
No movement from flying concrete or steel.
No passengers flying out.

That's because it's a simulation--a two-second clip that was slipped in that fooled the world. So we don't KNow what caused the towers to explode.

Were I to go to court, I could not testify that there was no plane, because I don't know what that two-second video clip was hiding, if anything. All I could say was that I saw a brief simulation of a plane---a plane that had no sound. We not only did not ever see what hit if anything, the bldg., but we did not see the entire explosion--it looks like a combination of real and simulation.

I've heard a person argue that by enlarging the video clip so much, you lose the detail of the debris or impact---but I point out that the plane is still visible despite the extreme enlargement.

You are showing a photo that's less than 2 years old! This AFTER-PRODUCTION CREATION was done by Aaron Taub, as a reaction to MY discovery ON THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE SHOWN ON TV SOMETIME IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS showed conclusively that the public was shown a fake. [There was a real scramble to smother that one, I can assure you.].

Itis driving me crazy to keep seeing their post-production cover-up shots being used by 9/11ers!!!

Visual evidence must be LIMITED to that which was shown to the world on TV on the earliest hours of 9/11.----NOT ALL THE STUFF distributed after that, WHICH is new and improved deception! Whether IT WAS DISTRIBUTED BY TV, DVD, INTERNET, it doesn't matter--it's been WORKED ON in the comfort of having time to work on it. Now this is for all the chips.... this one clip.

After seeing this clip and playing it repeatedly, I showed it all over the place in Bush-supported covens of the Internet. The next thing I notice is that the original is removed from thisisnewyork website, and this is there instead. [Fortunately WF kept the original on her collection of flt 175 videos.. If she had not SAVED IT, we would not be watching this today.


http://www.infowars.net/pictures/Oct06/231006spet11.jpg This is 100% lab work, folks, that never appeared until maybe two years ago. What is the first thing you notice that they changed? They moved the bldgs, the green spire, and closed the gap!

You all need to understand something---just like "Eye-Witnesses-R- Us", so too are "Photos-with-planes-R-Us." are ground out for public consuption, naive investigator, or spin-masters' use --they pump them out at the speed of light. They can edit out portions of someone's comments that they saw a plane "on TV". They follow us around--see what we've dug up, then counter it with spin, faked photos, get someone from Central Casting. See, they Know who knows what they're doing--who's the greatest threat, and I cannot help but notice who never gets any heat......

They had so many errors in the original, that analysis was like a movable feast. In fact, there were so many errors, that the orig was unreuseable, and they had to scrap it entirely and start from scratch with a brand new shiny fake. This is it.: Cleaner, sharper, tidier--certain to be substituted for the rough original fake that was show on 9/11.

http://www.infowars.net/pictures/Oct06/231006spet11.jpg

Excuse me if I'm not thrilled to go thru this explanation for the dozenth time, but the orig. was so revealing, that they had to move the buildings around, etc... AND THEY CLOSED THE GAP!!!!! finished covering up their fatal flaws, quietly slip it in on the thisisnewyork website.....and this website, IMHO, is where THEY leave stuff for us to find, (and quietly remove any photos that are a threat.--)where all the naive researchers grabbed it up since it "was sharper". So now we have not only the "corrected" version, but we have internal nit-picking, ATTACKING THE AUTHENTIC RESEARCHERS WHO ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK, by saying "see how clear and sharp this photo is? We were shown real planes! (Then they point to a photo that's less than 2 years old, freshly counterfieted.) "Therefore those who say these are not real planes must be disinfo.........!!!! " and right about now, my eyes are glazing over...........

[telecasterisation]

[alwun]

I am prepared to consider what Ally has pointed out as a distinct possibility. i.e. that the video displays have been enhanced over time. I had scarcely looked at the motion pictures for some 4 years. Plenty time to forget a vision which I never actually 'saw' in truth. Worthy of consideration.

Thats it.

cheers Al..

[flamesong]

Oh my God! Oh my God!

They moved the building with the green spire!

And if you look carefully, the building with the black sawn off pyramid roof has moved too!

Oh my God!

That tall sharp building on the right, that's moved.

And they've all moved closer... much closer...

Oh my God!

Or maybe there was another camera there...

'Dougal, these cows are small. Those are far away...'

[alwun]

It is just exactly as you point out, but you forgot to mention that the gap has been closed(the gap which used to be between the spire and the tower). The gap where the plane slips momentarily into limbo. Gap now closed. Well done though.

cheers Al...

[flamesong]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

I find it interesting to note that in my original posts with the 2 video clips, I alluded to the idea that I might be "slagged off" for presenting this evidence as being valid.

This is, in essence, what seems to have ultimately happened - despite the thrust of my initial posts which were to compare video clips.

QED? I leave readers to make what they will of these posts.

Night Night.

[telecasterisation]

Andrew Johnson wrote;

[Andrew Johnson]

cheers buddy - I love this stuff!

[Ally]