Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject:
Witchfinder General wrote:
Hi Webfairy
Please visit this site more often we need you.
Ignore the comments of the likes of CHEK, FALLIOUS, THERMATE, STEFAN AND JOHN WHITE.
From their comments you can tell they are not interested in what really hapened on 9/11, they are more interested in suppressing the truth.
The question is - why now?
Oh yeah, your psyop is now being actively excluded from the other major 911 sites and your available outlets are drying up. Between that and the physical evidence that continues to accumulate (molten iron spheroids anybody?) and the increasing profile of 911 Truth with the Rosie O'D related exposure, it's practically guaranteed to bring you out of the woodwork.
Apart from inept analysis, poisonous innuendo and misinterpretations of videos and photos, what evidence have "Researchers" found again? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Ignore the comments of the likes of CHEK, FALLIOUS, THERMATE, STEFAN AND JOHN WHITE.
From their comments you can tell they are not interested in what really hapened on 9/11, they are more interested in suppressing the truth.
No, my only interest is in bringing the core message to the broadest possible audience; that means a focus on facts and not theories, and a belief that the simplest, most easy to understand facts available to us are the best way to go.
The difference you perceive is between being a "Hobby Theorist" and a "Campaigner"; seemingly driven by a self serving (almost religious) want to "find the truth" rather than to actually further this movements agenda in a productive manner.
Fine. But will you leave off the constant niggling digs at anyone who disagrees with you? You need to recognise that the fact you have not convinced us of your claims is your failing (and the weakness of the theory you follow) and no one elses. _________________
[I accept that the CNN video is fake.
...and this is where I have dificulty also... I'm a CNN Video fakery believer BUT I ALSO believe the planes hit the towers...
The amount of work that would be needed to fake the CNN Video ostensibly would have required foreknowledge and SHOOTING OF FILM FOOTAGE prior to 9/11
So how did they know what floors the planes were going to strike?
What was housed on each of the floors where the planes struck?
And remember it was cheaper and easier to use a real plane than all the nonsense about holograms and missiles and beam weapons
Quote:
Actually, i need to correct myself.
The CNN video clip shown in the 911 Octopus video is fake.
But the CNN video clip shown in 911 In Plane Site is not fake
they are different.
Look at the explosion flash in one and not in the other prior to the plane hitting the building
which means the octopus one has been doctored.
Fred, WitchFinder General, MadgeB, WebFairy... is this true?
Is the 911 Octupuus CNN Footage fake and the 911 In Plane Site CNN Footage genuine?
Could you hyperlink me to the 911 In Plane Sight CNN Footage.
How does this affect Fred's "water's edge" shot thesis?
I've got TWO winners for the people of Weeks Island, La. and White Pine County, Nevada...
I need all THE BAD STUFF("sloppy scholarship" or :intellectual dishonesty") to be vetted out BEFORE I risk including this.
AGAIN...restricting THE DISCUSSION only to the "water's edge" shot...are the CNN Footage at 911Octupus and 911InPlaneSight the same?
...and to address OTHER CRITICISM ...exactly WHAT about the 911 Octupus footage has been doctored FROM THE original?
Ignore the comments of the likes of CHEK, FALLIOUS, THERMATE, STEFAN AND JOHN WHITE.
From their comments you can tell they are not interested in what really hapened on 9/11, they are more interested in suppressing the truth.
No, my only interest is in bringing the core message to the broadest possible audience; that means a focus on facts and not theories, and a belief that the simplest, most easy to understand facts available to us are the best way to go.
The difference you perceive is between being a "Hobby Theorist" and a "Campaigner"; seemingly driven by a self serving (almost religious) want to "find the truth" rather than to actually further this movements agenda in a productive manner.
Fine. But will you leave off the constant niggling digs at anyone who disagrees with you? You need to recognise that the fact you have not convinced us of your claims is your failing (and the weakness of the theory you follow) and no one elses.
well....lol!...from someone who can't even stand behind the words in his own postings...that is TRULY a hoot to hear you lecture anybody else.
So far I'm aware of 3 different audio tracks for the CNN Ghostplane video. In addition, the video has been shown on many different TV stations, and recorded by different people. I'm not sure that the "flash" frame is in very many of the recordings.
The best collection of WTC crash videos that I know about is here.
I haven't doctored any footage, and if someone will post a link to the "In Plane Site" CNN footage, I'd be happy to analyse that as well.
I know that CNN.com, for example, covers up the "bright streaking object" that leaves the explosion. That having been said, the "camera angle" hasn't changed any (at least not that I'm aware of.)
So far I'm aware of 3 different audio tracks for the CNN Ghostplane video. In addition, the video has been shown on many different TV stations, and recorded by different people. I'm not sure that the "flash" frame is in very many of the recordings.
The best collection of WTC crash videos that I know about is here.
I haven't doctored any footage, and if someone will post a link to the "In Plane Site" CNN footage, I'd be happy to analyse that as well.
I know that CNN.com, for example, covers up the "bright streaking object" that leaves the explosion. That having been said, the "camera angle" hasn't changed any (at least not that I'm aware of.)
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:37 am Post subject: The ones who "tainted" the "footage" is
stelios69 wrote:
Thanks for that webfairy
but you get my point, there are different versions of the exact same footage which have been doctored or at the very least appear different.
Some have the flash and some dont.
So some evidence MUST have been tainted by someone.
And the question is why.
The guy who made 911 octopus is one such person in my opinion.
The ones who "tainted" the "footage" is CNN!!
THEY produced at least three distinctly different versions.
WE RESEARCHED AND DISCOVERED the discrepancies.
Finding the evidence is way different than "creating" it.
It was out there before we even knew about it.
The first thing I knew about any of this was that there was no plane in the first hit footage that was supposed to have a plane in it.
I had no idea that all this other evidence was out there just waiting to be found.
At first,, I didn't even realize the second hit was fake.
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit
I was traumatized just like everybody else.
I could only study the first hit stills I learned to create with first Quicktime Pro and then virtualdub, by looking at them backwards and trying to put the building back together.
Perspective is the key. A nearer object ALWAYS looks bigger than the same object does far away. There is never an object in that footage big enough to be a plane.
http://missilegate.com
The different explosions explode independently, and then the plane shape hole takes shape, mostly under cover of the fireball.
Our discoveries are real. The story you have been told by the media and Los Alamos 911"Truth" is what is false and faked.
The CNN Ghostplane footage is not alone in being snarky.
What Fred calls the Black Plane,
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/jetcrash http://webfairy.org/inside911/jetcrash.htm
has just as many things wrong with it.
We just haven't had time to analyze it with the care the Ghostplane footage has gotten.
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: Re: The ones who "tainted" the "footage"
webfairy wrote:
THEY produced at least three distinctly different versions.
WE RESEARCHED AND DISCOVERED the discrepancies.
Finding the evidence is way different than "creating" it.
It was out there before we even knew about it.
How do you know the discrepancies are not entirely innocent editing after a legitimate film was sent in? For example to hide peoples names, general video processing which could remove the flash, or (less moral, but perfectly innocent) adding screams and shouts to heighten the drama? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:30 am Post subject: Re: Fictionalized Photoshopping
webfairy wrote:
stelios69 wrote:
This photograph of debris on the roof of WTC 4 shows a fragment of the hull of the jetliner that crashed into the South Tower (Flight 175).
Here is what is left of Building 4. Find this alleged plane part.
Notice the alleged debris doesn't have any dust on it?
The alleged mystery debris was photographed somewhere else and melded into a fake picture.
Judy Wood says the mystery debris picture is supposed to be on the roof of Building 5, so here's a picture of what's left of building 5 so you can look for the fake debris there too.
Here is the FEMA photo of the fragment of the fuselage of Flight 175 superimposed on the debris field on top of WTC5, with corresponding pieces of metal numbered:
Judy Wood says on her website that she cannot find the bit of fuselage amidst the debris, leaving the implication for the reader that the photo shows a planted object. In fact, however, she did not look carefully enough. The fragment can be identified unambiguously. This, of course, does not prove that it was NOT planted before the high-altitude photo was taken. What it does demonstrate is that you cannot take people's claims at their face value, especially when they have reasons not to look too hard for evidence that weakens or contradicts their thesis.
How does John White lie to thee? Let me count the ways:
On Monday he lied that the camera was in the wrong place
On Tuesday he lied that someone was stupid to register an account here
On Wednesday he lied that you shouldn't be able to see a building
On Thursday he lied that you had to be on a boat
On Friday he lied that you had to be on land
On Saturday he lied that you faked a photograph
On Sunday he lied that you mislabled a photograph as live video
... and NOW HE'S LYING that you can actually SEE a building right here in the CNN video where there is no building to be seen
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
lecture anybody else.
