im not going to pretend i understood every point in the footage but i did understand some, regardless of what i understand as in what there is 'evidence' for i was able to understand what was being claimed and what was wrong with the footage or being claimed to be wrong with it.
some of the footage i could see the point being made but others i didnt see the problem, ive only watched it once maybe i just didnt get some of it the first time i dont know.
the voice on the clip explaining points helped 100% and is better than the usual music and captions which can lead to the viewer jumping to conclusions about what is being claimed, i got more information watching that one clip than watching anyother clip that was made previous to it.
i recomend using this method over music alone more often, you could always add music inbetween the speaking to liven it up a bit and keep it intresting.
anyway you make them you dont have to listen to me but i do think the voice explaining helps.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject:
Right now I'm happy enough just to spectate the follies piling up round here from the stable of genii. Fred's latest vid is of especially high quality: Look out! Sky Octopus proves CNN footage fake! ROFL
I'm up for investigating the source of the "bridge drift" clip though, that can only be a fake. So who broadcast it? _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
yes you may believe the tv footage has inconsistencies...................however no explanation has been given for the damage to the towers................
yes these were all cutter charges place around the perimeter columns detonated in the hope of producing a plane shaped damage hole...........mind you zero wtc office workers noticed these charges on the perimeter columns of course...............
INFO INFO INFO!
its no good saying look at this this is fake............for the whole notion to be conclusive all has to be considered..............
actually now that i think about it................those damage holes could be super imposed using blue screen technology against a background of a perfect conditon wtc..........ah yes i get it now...........
very in depth...nice very in depth i like that scientific method of not adequately explaining phenomona thats excellent keep it coming..................................fred!...........durst!
nah im only joking man..............but what ya gotta say?
I'd say first of all I sure don't see any plane wreckage in those holes.
Secondly the holes could easily be produced by mines or bombs that were atttached to the outside of the buildings. Did you check under YOUR windowsill today to see if anyone planted bombs there? I didn't think so.
Third, the Airborne Laser has been filmed circling both the WTC complex and the Pentagon, and it's certainly capable of cutting those holes there as well.
So I don't see any evidence at all that "planes" made those holes. I'm not sure that planes even could have made those holes. Planes have crashed into buildings before and that's not what happened.
I'd say first of all I sure don't see any plane wreckage in those holes.
Secondly the holes could easily be produced by mines or bombs that were atttached to the outside of the buildings. Did you check under YOUR windowsill today to see if anyone planted bombs there? I didn't think so.
Third, the Airborne Laser has been filmed circling both the WTC complex and the Pentagon, and it's certainly capable of cutting those holes there as well.
So I don't see any evidence at all that "planes" made those holes. I'm not sure that planes even could have made those holes. Planes have crashed into buildings before and that's not what happened.
Hi Fred
No plane wreckage in the holes? This statement must be based upon researched evidence;
You say that planes have crashed into buildings before. Therefore it will be easy enough to publish a few pictures of previous jet airliners that have flown into tall buildings at @ 450mph leaving visible wreckage in the hole/s.
Prop driven bombers and Empire State type images don't qualify.
I'd say first of all I sure don't see any plane wreckage in those holes.
Secondly the holes could easily be produced by mines or bombs that were atttached to the outside of the buildings. Did you check under YOUR windowsill today to see if anyone planted bombs there? I didn't think so.
Third, the Airborne Laser has been filmed circling both the WTC complex and the Pentagon, and it's certainly capable of cutting those holes there as well.
So I don't see any evidence at all that "planes" made those holes. I'm not sure that planes even could have made those holes. Planes have crashed into buildings before and that's not what happened.
Morning Fred,
Interesting post. I presume you can provide evidence for your claims.
Firstly, could I ask if you think these holes are real (which you appear to concede), at what point do you think they were created?
Regarding your second point, could you provide evidence that "the holes could easily be produced by mines or bombs that were atttached to the outside of the buildings"?
On your third point, could you provide evidence that the "Airborne Laser has been filmed circling both the WTC complex and the Pentagon"? And that "it's certainly capable of cutting those holes there as well"?
Thanks. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
ive been thinking about this and although i can see the faults pointed out in some of the clips it dose raise more questions unless your the type who just assumes things or thinks they know it all.
proving the videos are faked are one thing, proving who faked them is a totally differant thing to prove.
how do we know who faked them?
it could of been anyone out of the whole population of the earth.
what evidence says only cnn could of faked them?
also you demonstrate how it was done and even put in some of your own fakery(the octupus) proving anyone can put special effects into videos.
even yourself.
so all this boils down to is trust unless it can be proved only joe bloggs could of faked the video.
therefore there is no evidence other than 'someone' is manipulating videos, which could be anyone yourself included fred as well as anyone on here or in the world.
Airborne lasers....you know for a FACT no army in the world would have a recruiting problem if they kitted people out with airborne lasers. Hell, I'D join up!! Admittedly only until I'd writtten a really rude word on the great wall of China but still, why would you want to keep something like that quiet all this time?
It is unquestionable that much of the available 911 linked footage is faked. This does not mean it is 'TV' footage, more, doctored post-event and not live on the day.
Unless it can be conclusively proven to have gone out on the day as we now see it - then it means nothing whatsoever.
As for the background moving about in the video, of course it will move as the camera was hand-held and not tripod mounted.
Don't know if you are about, Fred. Could you respond at all?
Craig W wrote:
Fred wrote:
I'd say first of all I sure don't see any plane wreckage in those holes.
Secondly the holes could easily be produced by mines or bombs that were atttached to the outside of the buildings. Did you check under YOUR windowsill today to see if anyone planted bombs there? I didn't think so.
Third, the Airborne Laser has been filmed circling both the WTC complex and the Pentagon, and it's certainly capable of cutting those holes there as well.
So I don't see any evidence at all that "planes" made those holes. I'm not sure that planes even could have made those holes. Planes have crashed into buildings before and that's not what happened.
Morning Fred,
Interesting post. I presume you can provide evidence for your claims.
Firstly, could I ask if you think these holes are real (which you appear to concede), at what point do you think they were created?
Regarding your second point, could you provide evidence that "the holes could easily be produced by mines or bombs that were atttached to the outside of the buildings"?
On your third point, could you provide evidence that the "Airborne Laser has been filmed circling both the WTC complex and the Pentagon"? And that "it's certainly capable of cutting those holes there as well"?
Thanks.
_________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
yes you may believe the tv footage has inconsistencies...................however no explanation has been given for the damage to the towers................
yes these were all cutter charges place around the perimeter columns detonated in the hope of producing a plane shaped damage hole...........mind you zero wtc office workers noticed these charges on the perimeter columns of course...............
INFO INFO INFO!
its no good saying look at this this is fake............for the whole notion to be conclusive all has to be considered..............
actually now that i think about it................those damage holes could be super imposed using blue screen technology against a background of a perfect conditon wtc..........ah yes i get it now...........
very in depth...nice very in depth i like that scientific method of not adequately explaining phenomona thats excellent keep it coming..................................fred!...........durst!
nah im only joking man..............but what ya gotta say?
respect
We still have to remember that these are just still photographs, so easy to manipulate. Do we have any live footage of the impact holes showing the surrounding steel bent inwards? Although, even if we found some I doubt it is going to lend any credibility to the 'real plane scenario' at this stage of the CGI game.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject:
Quote:
We still have to remember that these are just still photographs, so easy to manipulate. Do we have any live footage of the impact holes showing the surrounding steel bent inwards? Although, even if we found some I doubt it is going to lend any credibility to the 'real plane scenario' at this stage of the CGI game.
Inventive. and yes there are btw
But, tragically, behind the times. Now that it has been exclusively revealed that the entire of manhatten was a computer generated fake, no images of any kind can count for anything else but studying errors in the CGI re-creation: and NO Planes Theory can never die!!! Bwa ha ha ha etc
At least, that seems to be what hopes are being pinned on. i'm doubtful myself, the standing of NPT is now so low on the internet at large we are practically doing 911 researchers a favour giving them someone to talk to... _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
We still have to remember that these are just still photographs, so easy to manipulate. Do we have any live footage of the impact holes showing the surrounding steel bent inwards? Although, even if we found some I doubt it is going to lend any credibility to the 'real plane scenario' at this stage of the CGI game.
Inventive. and yes there are btw
But, tragically, behind the times. Now that it has been exclusively revealed that the entire of manhatten was a computer generated fake, no images of any kind can count for anything else but studying errors in the CGI re-creation: and NO Planes Theory can never die!!! Bwa ha ha ha etc
At least, that seems to be what hopes are being pinned on. i'm doubtful myself, the standing of NPT is now so low on the internet at large we are practically doing 911 researchers a favour giving them someone to talk to...
There is more solid proof to suggest TV Fakery audiio and visual then there is to support planes. The reason 'NPT is is so low' is because it was 'perped' from the start and everyone fell for the 'NPT is disinformation' blag.
Videos like Fred's prove that TV fakery was used. This is all happening so incredibly fast and it is a shame that the Loose Change Final Edit has bowed to the pressure of not including anything about TV fakery.
Their cover has been blown now all it takes is for people to accept that the inclusion of planes was faked and the pro jet fuel arguments are dustified in an instant!
Last edited by schizophrenogenic element on Fri May 11, 2007 5:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
yes you may believe the tv footage has inconsistencies...................however no explanation has been given for the damage to the towers................
yes these were all cutter charges place around the perimeter columns detonated in the hope of producing a plane shaped damage hole...........mind you zero wtc office workers noticed these charges on the perimeter columns of course...............
INFO INFO INFO!
its no good saying look at this this is fake............for the whole notion to be conclusive all has to be considered..............
actually now that i think about it................those damage holes could be super imposed using blue screen technology against a background of a perfect conditon wtc..........ah yes i get it now...........
very in depth...nice very in depth i like that scientific method of not adequately explaining phenomona thats excellent keep it coming..................................fred!...........durst!
nah im only joking man..............but what ya gotta say?
respect
We still have to remember that these are just still photographs, so easy to manipulate. Do we have any live footage of the impact holes showing the surrounding steel bent inwards? Although, even if we found some I doubt it is going to lend any credibility to the 'real plane scenario' at this stage of the CGI game.
i get it, if someone shows their reasons why they believe a photo is faked they are attacked, at the same time you think the photo isnt faked even though it is obvious to anyone with good eyesight.
however you claim a photo to be faked and show no reasons why you think its faked but instead speculate and thats fine.
so if it goes against your case by proving a photo you need to prove your point to be fake..........attack attack attack.
if it goes against you case because if the photo was real it would destroy your claims......it's fake it's fake.
now prove why you think the photo is faked? afterall you attacking someones work here on a lie arnt you? well thats what fred would say anyway.
yes you may believe the tv footage has inconsistencies...................however no explanation has been given for the damage to the towers................
yes these were all cutter charges place around the perimeter columns detonated in the hope of producing a plane shaped damage hole...........mind you zero wtc office workers noticed these charges on the perimeter columns of course...............
INFO INFO INFO!
its no good saying look at this this is fake............for the whole notion to be conclusive all has to be considered..............
actually now that i think about it................those damage holes could be super imposed using blue screen technology against a background of a perfect conditon wtc..........ah yes i get it now...........
very in depth...nice very in depth i like that scientific method of not adequately explaining phenomona thats excellent keep it coming..................................fred!...........durst!
nah im only joking man..............but what ya gotta say?
respect
We still have to remember that these are just still photographs, so easy to manipulate. Do we have any live footage of the impact holes showing the surrounding steel bent inwards? Although, even if we found some I doubt it is going to lend any credibility to the 'real plane scenario' at this stage of the CGI game.
i get it, if someone shows their reasons why they believe a photo is faked they are attacked, at the same time you think the photo isnt faked even though it is obvious to anyone with good eyesight.
however you claim a photo to be faked and show no reasons why you think its faked but instead speculate and thats fine.
so if it goes against your case by proving a photo you need to prove your point to be fake..........attack attack attack.
if it goes against you case because if the photo was real it would destroy your claims......it's fake it's fake.
now prove why you think the photo is faked? afterall you attacking someones work here on a lie arnt you? well thats what fred would say anyway.
Marky, you have been 'attacking' NPT more than anyone. You have seen the footage that Fred has presented. They used fakery, do you get it or are you drifting back into the clutches of the 'real plane delusion' from whence you came?
not at all just sticking to provable facts, speculation and assumptions will come back to bite the movement on the bottom, so i dont go there, your free to keep assuming if you like but i'd rather not.
Last edited by marky 54 on Fri May 11, 2007 6:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
not at all just sticking to provable facts, speculation and assumptions ill come back to bite the movement on the bottom, so i dont go there, your free to keep assuming if you like but i'd rather not.
Stop being LAZY and go and find some video footage of the impact holes, then.
not at all just sticking to provable facts, speculation and assumptions ill come back to bite the movement on the bottom, so i dont go there, your free to keep assuming if you like but i'd rather not.
Stop being LAZY and go and find some video footage of the impact holes, then.
why would i need to do that? i know the holes are real regardless of how or what coursed them.
not at all just sticking to provable facts, speculation and assumptions ill come back to bite the movement on the bottom, so i dont go there, your free to keep assuming if you like but i'd rather not.
Stop being LAZY and go and find some video footage of the impact holes, then.
why would i need to do that? i know the holes are real regardless of how or what coursed them.
ive been thinking about this and although i can see the faults pointed out in some of the clips it dose raise more questions unless your the type who just assumes things or thinks they know it all.
proving the videos are faked are one thing, proving who faked them is a totally differant thing to prove.
how do we know who faked them?
it could of been anyone out of the whole population of the earth.
what evidence says only cnn could of faked them?
also you demonstrate how it was done and even put in some of your own fakery(the octupus) proving anyone can put special effects into videos.
even yourself.
so all this boils down to is trust unless it can be proved only joe bloggs could of faked the video.
therefore there is no evidence other than 'someone' is manipulating videos, which could be anyone yourself included fred as well as anyone on here or in the world.
what you mean like this, which has been ignored so far.
However, I will add that this version seems to assume that because bluescreening is common technology, this therefore occurred here.
Another question that arises is why they bothered to do that footage with that excitable guy at all. IIRC there is no shortage of people who declare quite frankly they saw planes and I once followed a link on this very forum that led to transcripted witness statements of survivors from the towers who spoke openly of watching the aircraft approach. This particular individual is of no consequence in the grand scheme (I'd personally never seen that footage before) which raises the question of why they needed to do it in the first place. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
However, I will add that this version seems to assume that because bluescreening is common technology, this therefore occurred here.
Another question that arises is why they bothered to do that footage with that excitable guy at all. IIRC there is no shortage of people who declare quite frankly they saw planes and I once followed a link on this very forum that led to transcripted witness statements of survivors from the towers who spoke openly of watching the aircraft approach. This particular individual is of no consequence in the grand scheme (I'd personally never seen that footage before) which raises the question of why they needed to do it in the first place.
The point is, is that the footage shown appears to be fake. The question is why are CNN using fake footage?
I really don't care about your 'witnesses'. Who are they? Can they be verified?? The point is that fake footage was used to brainwash you, Dogsy.
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
