Evan Fairbanks: "The image of that plane just coming out of nowhere, coming into the frame and disappearing into the side, into the south side of the tower as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hanger it was just landing in. We've seen these images in movies and we know that it's all artificial and Hollywood makes it and it's hard to put together that it's real this time."
"And it was only after the first tower collapsed and FBI agents conducted me to a safe place, that I stopped shooting. When I told them what I had on videotape, they brought me to their command center. They have the original, which has five minutes of audio. This is a copy."
[/youtube] _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Last edited by thought criminal on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Evan Fairbanks: "The image of that plane just coming out of nowhere, coming into the frame and disappearing into the side, into the south side of the tower as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hanger it was just landing in. We've seen these images in movies and we know that it's all artificial and Hollywood makes it and it's hard to put together that it's real this time."
"And it was only after the first tower collapsed and FBI agents conducted me to a safe place, that I stopped shooting. When I told them what I had on videotape, they brought me to their command center. They have the original, which has five minutes of audio. This is a copy."
[/youtube]
Can somebody explain why the FBI swooped down on Evan Fairbanks, confiscated his original footage and then gave him back a copy later that day? _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Come on John 'Boeings' White, why did the FBI immediately take the footage filmed from Evan Fairbanks' camera and then give him back a copy? _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject:
'Cos its there Job!
and there's nothing in this:
Quote:
Evan Fairbanks: "The image of that plane just coming out of nowhere, coming into the frame and disappearing into the side, into the south side of the tower as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hanger it was just landing in. We've seen these images in movies and we know that it's all artificial and Hollywood makes it and it's hard to put together that it's real this time."
"And it was only after the first tower collapsed and FBI agents conducted me to a safe place, that I stopped shooting. When I told them what I had on videotape, they brought me to their command center. They have the original, which has five minutes of audio. This is a copy."
That says anything else than this guy saw a real plane hit the building and was shocked _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Evan Fairbanks: "The image of that plane just coming out of nowhere, coming into the frame and disappearing into the side, into the south side of the tower as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hanger it was just landing in. We've seen these images in movies and we know that it's all artificial and Hollywood makes it and it's hard to put together that it's real this time."
"And it was only after the first tower collapsed and FBI agents conducted me to a safe place, that I stopped shooting. When I told them what I had on videotape, they brought me to their command center. They have the original, which has five minutes of audio. This is a copy."
That says anything else than this guy saw a real plane hit the building and was shocked
Why is it their job to keep the original? There was footage from the other news networks that had a 'live' feed. For what reason would they seize it immediately and not give him back the original? Why did they not make a copy and keep the copy? _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
In contrast to the cornucopia of conclusive evidence you have brought to this and all the other spiced ham you have posted, no doubt.
Repetetive posts of blurred, compressed, degenerated video coupled with a shameful paucity of analysis punctuated with insults.
I'm humbled.
You are not getting the gist of it are you? You are not getting the thrust of this thread, Flamesong?
I will repeat myself for the slow learner class. Why did the FBI immediately seize Ewan Fairbanks footage and then later give him a copy back instead of the original? _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
No, you are asking a quasi-rhetorical question and I gave you contact details of an outfit who are more likely to know the answer than anybody on here.
But as an occasional filmmaker I would say that I would always prefer to keep the original of any material. It has data encoded upon it from the camera, like time codes etc., which may be useful when editing. Not knowing how the copy was made I cannot say whether this data will have been transferred.
I don't realy see the importance of the discussion. Maybe they slipped up and gave him the wrong tape. Maybe they gave him the copy as a 'subtle' way of telling him that they had made a copy. So what. They have a copy.
Maybe they slipped up and gave him the wrong tape. Maybe they gave him the copy as a 'subtle' way of telling him that they had made a copy. So what. They have a copy.
Really? They slipped up?? It was a subtle way of telling him they had a copy??? But they do not have a copy, they have the original. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
"Yawn" is really the best response to TC these days.
Why did the FBI take his film?
Well lets all just pretend 9/11 WASN'T an inside job, wouldn't the FBI still collect all film of the crime as part of their investigation?
So how does this feed one theory over what happened more than another?
You want us to conclude "ah, it's because they wanted to TV fakery it, by gum that thought criminal was right all along" but that doesn't make any sense - is the guy claiming IN ANY WAY that the copy he receieved back was any different to the original?
Is he saying "well when I shot it there wasn't a plane!"?
No.
In your desperation to make this fit your preconceived view it has somehow elluded you that this infact works against it, since the guy is fairly explicitly saying he DID see a plane fly into the building.
Did you even stop to consider that?
If you want this to feed into the 9/11 Truth Campaign the more reasonable cause for zealousness in getting all ametuer footage might to be make sure none of it had any footage which would prove the basement explosions we know happened.
But ultimatley, I think this evidence is meaningless since his film was not withheld from the public and so can be put forwards as a quite standard gathering of evidence on the FBI's behalf. _________________
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
