Site censorship?

[John White]

[Banish]

http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/B534B6F558E44FC7846E99E0 7E41E8DB/cnn-fake-footage-blasted-mor.aspx

[flamesong]

Banish, why are you posting a link to a video which has been posted umpteen times already?

Anybody remember The Gong Show?

I mean, that last section, 'Dustbin' is hardly used.

Get my drift?

[flamesong]

Not the right answer.

The correct answer is you are a spammer.

[Andrew Johnson]

Hmmm - more abusive posts here - not that surprising really.

But to answer the original question, there is no such censorship or checking of users.

The amount of spammer accounts we get per day (10-20 per day in the last week) means it can be difficult to find genuine posters - especially when they use short or anonymous handles and supply no further details.

[Andrew Johnson]

This is what I get when someone signs up:

==================
Hello,

The account owned by "Dark_" has been deactivated or newly created, you should check the details of this user (if required) and activate it using the following link:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/profile.php?mode=activate&u=2628&act _key=07155c8d2

Verify the account profile here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2628

Member details:

E-mail: Dark_@biofreemail.com [OK]
Interests:
Occupation:
Website:
Signature:
IP Address: 58.65.239.218 [58.65.239.218]

--
Thanks, The British 9/11 Truth Campaign
==============


biofreemail is a likely spammer domain - but it could be genuine. This is the "privilege" of moderation - filtering the action of what could well be "spambots" for all I know.

[david carmichael]

[Banish]

I make one errant post and I'm a spammer. I wonder how many of FS's 1k plus posts contain information and how many are attacks on other members or pointless drivel.

[flamesong]

[MadgeB]

No other video showing the same alignment as in the CNN footage of the second plane hit has been forthcoming, but apparently some people have suggested the shot might have been taken from the water.

Fred has obliged by giving us some footage taken from the water, which again shows the CNN images to be impossible.

http://www.911researchers.com/node/432#new

The footage of the second hit shown by CNN was faked.

[John White]

[chek]

[John White]

And it follows that if they can't find a single image to compare and deomonstrate the CNN video to be "fake", then there isn't a single frame in the video that shows there case: QED case closed, theory dismissed

[andrewwatson]

[John White]

Its up to "fred" to impress, not for me to be impressed. I give my honest opinion, I owe 9/11 truth no less

[MadgeB]

I'm afraid you're not paying attention check and John. There are plenty of stills about at the sites already linked to, and there are frames nicely put on top of one another in the videos (overlays) to show buildings lined up, with the same perspective, but then not fitting with other features in the CNN video.

If you find the music problematic you can go straight to 2.06 on this video - Peggy Carter deserves some credit too (see her earlier blogs).
http://conspicuousplot.blogspot.com/

You can't wiggle out of it - the damn thing is a fake. Why is that so surprising when it's coming from the same criminals who faked so many other aspects of the story?

[John White]

In that case bring 'em over here and make your case: unlike you, I'm not running around the internet like a whipped dog "proving" things that, according to "fred" (or was it bsregistration?") we are all too thick to understand

Like perspective

[andrewwatson]

[John White]

[MadgeB]

The Fred vid is conclusive, since the buildings can be - and are - lined up. It was alleged that "they can't find a single image to compare and demonstrate the CNN video to be fake" - this is false.

Now I do most humbly apologise for my lack of technical expertise, but I don’t know how to insert shots from a video into this post to make this as simple as possible for those who prefer not to look at the images they're criticising. I’ve tried to attach two screen shots putting the compared images side by side. But anyway I will gladly outline the scene I referred to earlier.

On the left we have a building which is overlaid with the image of the same building from the CNN footage. I would say that the edge of this building (the Whitehall building), is pretty much aligned, in that the size matches, the roof line matches up, the windows match, the ledge under the windows lines up, etc.

In my simple, layperson’s understanding of the word, I would say that the Whitehall building is here, in these two overlaid images, viewed from the same perspective.

The image is 2 clicks away at 2.06 on this video. http://conspicuousplot.blogspot.com/2007/04/911fake-footage-definitive -proof-for.html

The twin towers are vastly different in the two compared images however, and I would therefore say they were viewed from different perspectives.
The twin towers in the ‘underlaid’ shot are shown at 1.29 in the video. This is another proof that the CNN footage was faked.

But perhaps there is a different understanding of the word ‘perspective’ that someone could enlighten me with?

[marky 54]

if its conclusive proof there is no longer any need for you to waffle on here and try to presaude the rest is there?

it should be sent to the right people asking the right questions like cnn for example, good luck.

or is the only reason for all this just to presaude everyone and nothing comes of it even though its conclusive?

if not theres no point wasting time presuading everyone is there?

you've made your mind up why do you expect me to change mine all of a sudden showing the same stuff and going over it. all that matters is you think you have conclusive prove nothing i or others say makes any differance as we either dont see it or disagree, so your next step seems to be doing something about it if your so sure its conclusive.

[John White]

Oh dear. "No Planes Theorist" caught out manufacturing evidance again?

Here is the CNN shot




And here is fred/bsregistrations comparison image, wrongly labeled as live video when it is in fact a still, which this latest video claims shows a mis-match in the location of the damage



In fact, this is clearly photoshopped damage and fake smoke on a still photo taken sometime prior to 9/11.

Very very naughty!

Of course this also blows the whole trees argument right out of the water as well.... without even doing a perspective comparison to show that the edge of the council building is coming from another location: close, agreed, but not close enough

Blimey "believers" get desperate!

"I know fakery is true so I'm gonna fake stuff to prove it!"

[ian neal]

First up 9/11 controversies refers to the most contentious areas of 9/11 research which most divides opinion within the movement. Nothing more. Nothing less. So this includes Steven Jones thermite theories as well.

Second can I appeal to both sides that no matter how convinced you are of the truth of these issues to try not to polarise debate?

My take on this film analysis is that it is interesting research that deserves to be taken seriously and looked into in greater depth. The trees are less convincing since trees do indeed grow and it is 5 and half years since 9/11, but the discrepancy between the 'scaffolding' on top of the building in the CNN footage and its absence in the independent footage is hard to explain and certainly no harm will be done by putting some pertinent questions to CNN.

More generally my main concerns with certain voices within the 9/11 researchers community is how they communicate and relate to the wider 9/11 community. For example, my understanding is that Steven Jones did work at Los Alamos and the US military already have direct energy beam weapons in service. But it is one thing to ask Steven Jones to account for his associations with Los Alamos or to explore the hypothesis that DEW were used in 9/11 and another to chuck abuse and silly jibes like 'plane huggers' and 9/11 truthling at those that do not believe DEW or TV fakery or No plane theories are proven.

Thankfully in Andrew Watson and Andrew Johnson we have 2 voices who to the best of my knowledge have never gone down the route of abusing those that disagree with them, so thank you to you both.

[Andrew Johnson]

[MadgeB]

I understand that Fred would like to reply directly to the considered comments of his critics, but is still unable to log in, having received an email that says, “Your account is currently inactive, the administrator of the board will need to activate it before you can log in. You will receive another email when this has occured.”

Argument sharpens up the thinking and clarifies the issues, so I think it would be a good thing if this debate was played out, with someone who is being accused of fakery being allowed to defend himself.

In the meanwhile, John White and chek, do I take your silence on the question of perspective as agreement, at least, that we all DO have the same understanding of the word, and that we’ve established that if a building (say the Whitehall Building) is lined up exactly in two images then it’s viewed from the same perspective?

[John White]

Dont ask me: ask Andrew Johnson: he only has to click a button

As for "fred" (who is also "bsregistration", correct?)

If he wants to come over here and explain why he found it nessacary to fake evidence, I'd book a circle ticket and a bag of popcorn

[Witchfinder General]

[Fallious]

[marky 54]

eh? one mintue its conclusive proof the next minute its fake/possible fake.

i aint seeing the case for it being faked by cnn or by fred, i never saw anything in it at all, take the extra piece on the building marked in red for example, just because its in one shot and not the other its assumed to be faked by cnn, yet i dont know and have not seen proof that the piece in question was'nt built after 9/11 etc.

its to complicated to know because things get built,grow and change all the time, im sure if you filmed in most places 5 years latter there would be changes. so unless your there(in new york) its hard to appreciate what is being talk about or to know certain things are strange.

i just hope who ever is trying to prove this is honest, because most of us dont live in newyork to beable to see the prespective our selves to know there is no way the cnn footage can be matched.

[MadgeB]

So can we agree that this is a fair summary of where we are so far with the CNN footage argument?

- No images found so far, whether taken in order to test the CNN footage, or ‘tourist’ footage found on the internet, can be shown to tally with the perspective(s) of the CNN footage.

- The critics here can see what’s wrong with the attempted matches, but they can’t say where the camera should be to correct the shot.

- They can’t work it out scientifically, and unfortunately neither can they fly to New York to solve the problem for us for once and for all, so there is no hope of an ‘empirical’ solution at the moment.

- Therefore, we must rely on theory, bearing in mind that that the CNN footage itself can’t be questioned. Its authenticity must be taken as an article of faith - no evidence needed.

- Therefore it must be Fred who is the faker. This too must be taken as an article of faith - no evidence needed.