Show me the ektachromes

[whoop45]

A good assignment for planehuggers everywhere is to find someone from the NYC, Jersey, or maybe New Haven, CN area – anywhere anywhere - that has a genuine ektachrome positive, or C-41 negative, or T-Max negative of planes flying toward the WTC towers on 9-11-2001. I mean from John Q. Public with logged in traceability to a retail outlet and commercial lab, not some DARPA, or NRO fake (the perps may just be working on coming up with a fake). Nobody will be able to find a authentic one. No authentic E-6 or C-41 will surface showing any plane flying toward either tower on 9/11 because there were no planes. And due to the mounting evidence, deep down the planehuggers really know this. All the so-called still pictures of planes on 9/11 are digital screen shots containing computer generated images from suspect as to their identity individuals like Evan Fairbanks (who has no pre-9/11 biography), Kelly Guenther (only one in this group with any discernable pre-911 biography), Frank DeNicola, Chris Hopewell, Maurizio Benazzo, Robert A. Cumins, and the like .

[chek]

Whoop, it's like this.

We have what we have, and not what we might like to have.
That's the nature of reality as opposed to fantasy. If it wasn't recorded by your approved technology, it didn't happen, seems to be your slant here - can you see how ridiculous your posture is?

Let me put it this way in the hope that it clarifies the point for you.

Have you used the lavatory at any time in the past two weeks?
I will, of course, require photographic proof of your answer - and none of your easily faked digital pixel rubbish. Wet film, chemist or film lab contact exposure printed photos only, will be acceptable.

If you can't provide this, then you obviously can't have and you're equally obviously full of sh*t.

Now ask someone intelligent you can trust back at your "researchers" base about the logical fallacy of expecting proof by negative (no pun intended).

Failing that, Thick Rick or Faeco Nico might be able to help you, though I have my doubts, even once you've decoded their gobbledegook.

[telecasterisation]

[Dogsmilk]

I am only prepared to believe 911 footage shot in Super 8 - nothing else will do.

[socialist_thinker]

Why is it so blindingly obvious to us yet the truth is so ludicrous to the public? The evidence all points to a government cover up. What happened to the pentagon plane? No-one seems to hear of it anymore? We need to get out on the streets and let the public know the truth. It won't take much before they see through the fascist governments veil.

[telecasterisation]

[whoop45]

You two are not even doing a good job of pretending that you are not getting my point. The main point is that an E-6 or C-41 process image by a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker John Q. Public individual traceable to a retail outlet and a real life commercial lab could not be infected with a fake computer generated image of an airplane as were these screen shots from videos shot by these suspect individuals who for the most part
lacked any pre-9/11 biography.



We can all agree that if a plane was to approach a building at 500 mph that that plane would cover the last mile in a scant 7.2 seconds. Granted this would not provide a lot in the way of reaction time .But new waves of camera toting individuals were arriving near ground zero during the 9-10 minutes between the North Tower explosion and the South Tower explosion .Those in place would have cameras trained on the burning North Tower snapping away. And don't forget that cameras were clicking from windows all over South Manhattan with lines of sight to the WTC.They likewise would be trained on the burning North Tower and snapping off picture after picture. I can see some with
high end SLR's cranking off 4-5 frames per second. There would be minimal dependence on reaction time especially for those using cameras from some distance. If there was a plane; they would have got it.

A hypothetical plane traveling at 500 mph captured at 1/500 shutter speed would have the plane traveling only 1.47 feet.

1/500 sec : 1.47 feet
1/100 : 7.33 feet
1/50 : 14.37 feet 1/9th the length of any hypothetical Boeing 767

There would be an absolute overabundance of E-6/C-41 shots of a plane hitting the South Tower if it had actually happened. It didn't .Any rational person without some kind of refuse to eat crow, grasping for straws agenda is at this point in time starting to acknowledge that it didn't. No-one will find non-digital shots.

Oh and parenthetically, the apparent speed of the CGI cartoon images of planes that were added to the video of the South Tower 9/11 explosion; or more accurately stated,to mistake riddled greyboxing "photo shop" images -which we now know most of the backgrounds were -was no faster than the speed of the smoke shown emanating from the burning North Tower. That’s right; the fake image of the plane had an apparent speed no greater than the black smoke that poured from the North Tower.

[Dogsmilk]

[chek]

[gruts]

I said it on another thread the other day but it seems even more appropriate here....

illogical thinking + irrational bias = bs

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[Rowan Berkeley]

the idea of seeking 'verifiable biographies' of unattached civilians is a bit unrealistic.

[whoop45]

The fact remains through the haze of sophomoric insults sent my way that the only recourse you deadender planehuggers who have replied to my post is to pretend -and quite unconvincingly I might add - that you don't understand my point.

Once again, I'm not saying that a non digital (E-6,C-41 or whatnot) still picture not showing a plane proves what is so very obvious from other sources which is that no plane hit either WTC tower on 9-11-2001. What I am saying is that a non-digital still actually showing a plane would just about shut the no planners up especially if it was shot by a John Q. Public sort of individual and is traceable to a retail outlet and a commercial photo processing lab. Unlike a digital image -fake blue screen uploads can't be added and fakery of non-digital images is in the hands of experts at the DARPAs or NROs of the world. Some theorize that the famous photo of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in a back yard with a rifle in his hand is an example of a fake of a non-digital photo by experts.

The onus is on the planehuggers to find a non-digital still shot showing a plane approaching the WTC on 9-11-2001. But each of you deadender planehuggers who post here knows deep down that no one will find such a pearl of great price. None exist because the story about the planes is a lie. Likewise deep down each of you posting planehuggers knows deep down that their silly little planehugger worlds have long since crumbled. In fact those worlds crumbled in the spring of 2002. Yet here you people are still arguing in late summer 2007. Amazing!!!!

For crying out loud,there's video showing the fake cartoon CGI of a plane approaching the South Tower from the south. There's video showing the fake cartoon CGI of a plane approaching the South Tower from the north so that it passes by the burning North Tower hitting the northside of the South Tower. There's loads of video showing no plane at all with audio from TV commentators saying such things as 'There's another explosion further down in the building-OH,is that in the other building ?" And, there's the photos showing that the largest hole in the vertical steel columns just inside the 1/4 inch thick aluminum facade that forms the skin of the South Tower is only 8x3 meters , by a long chalk too small for a Boeing 767 to have passed through. Why!?!?! is there even an argument.


http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate37.htm
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate38.htm

[Rowan Berkeley]

I don't know if this qualifies as exactly on-topic, but for what it's worth, I have come to the conclusion that both sets of nose-out shots must have been faked specifically to act as red herrings - people who thought plane-hit footage was fishy in general would gravitate to the nose-out shots and start making really loopy suggestions about their significance. I have posted a few examples of the sheer weirdness this can lead to, on other threads.

If I am right, it would follow that the thing being concealed by the nose-out shots is the fishiness of plane-hit shots in general.

[chek]

[eogz]

I watched the Naudet brother's documentary last night, Inside Tower 1.

They if you all remember were the only ones to film the approach and contact of the first plane.

It looked like a plane.

It flew like a plane.

It sounded like a plane.

I'm not convinced enough to follow NPT, especially when different sources and all those eye witnesses on the day kept saying "plane".

[telecasterisation]

[whoop45]

chek writes and I quote:
...If (God forbid) I were to witness a new 9/11 today and shot footage of it

If you were to witness another 9/11 you would witness tail# N334AA failing to even as much as arrive in Boston on the morning of 9-11-2001 much less take off. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first is a lie.


You would witness tail nos. N591UA and N612UA land in Cleveland ,Ohio due to bomb on board scares and see the passengers dis-board and be taken to a special NASA hanger .You'd see the he mayor of Cleveland would come to speak to them as he (Richard White) did for the first 9/11 .And we wouldn't need your camera because a Cincinnati television station would record ( of course they destroyed the tape) the whole event just like it did during the first. The landing of N591UA and N612UA in Cleveland, Ohio on 9-11-2001 was likewise reported in the 9-12-2001 Akron Beacon Journal. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first is a lie.


If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that tail# N644AA that never takes off from Boston Logan. The tail # N644AA existed, but there was never such a flight. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first is a lie.

Perhaps having paid a lot more attention top 9/11 the sequel you would understand that those pre 9/11 warnings that the so many seem to want to trumpet were part of the false veneer needed to add believability to the fake counterfeit "terrorist attacks" that took place on Sept. 11,2001 .Those warnings were every bit as phony concocted and spurious as the planted evidence in that bevy of rental cars attributed to the non-existent hijackers , complete with copies of the Koran, instructions on how to fly jumbo Boeing jets ,terrorist guidebooks , cockamamie Operation Bojinka gobbledygook and the like. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first is a lie.


If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see the National Reconnaissance Office Drill going on which involved tainting air traffic control radar screens with false blips. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first is a lie.


If you were to witness another 9/11 you would witness just as with the first no stand-down of NORAD because there were no hijacked planes. You would see that no planes were hijacked on Sept. 11; 2001. You would witness - as I said -numerous false blips being injected onto air traffic control radar screens as part of the National Reconnaissance Office Drill. You would see that after the fact, the perps gleaned picked and culled from amongst those false blips so that the singled out false blip pseudo-paths could be coalesced into the illusion that planes had their transponders cut off and veered sharply off course. You wouldn't see anyone turning off any transponders and you wouldn't see any planes making sharp eastward turns as the official lie insist. You would see that just as with the first 9/11 no planes were flown into any buildings on Sept. 11, 2001. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first 9/11 is a lie.

If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that part of the preparation for the National Reconnaissance Office Drill was to ahead of time have phony video of planes hitting the WTC. You would hear TV announcers talk only of explosions but see their honest reporting overridden by racist xenophobic jingoistic homage to TV Fakery blue screen uploads of planes hitting buildings superimposed over the real backgrounds.If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first 9/11 is a lie.

If you were to witness another 9/11 you would be a little more alert to smoking guns this time such as as part of the National Reconnaissance Office Drill Betty Org's fraudulent distress call to a Raleigh North Carolina Airline reservation agency .In a real hijacking she would punch a four digit we're being hijacked code. There was no real hijacking. And what's more the Org call undoubtedly originated from a DARPA or perhaps NRO war room. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first is a lie.

If you were to witness another 9/11 you would perchance this time take note of the fact that amongst all the WTC rubble that only fragments from one desk was found, or that only one half of one telephone keypad was found. Maybe this time you would take note as you go about shooting footage that 70% of the total mass of the WTC towers was turned into near microscopic dust. Conceivably you would be a little bit more on your P's and Q's during this 9/11 revisited and notice there were literally scores of burned cars almost exclusively early 90's and late 80's compact cars located 1 to 1« miles from the WTC. There's no way that these burned cars were a result of a diffuse flame muffled black smoke fire on the 78th floor of the WTC towers. By your having observed these anomalies this 2nd time around one would hope that no-one would have to endure your asinine doubting of the exotic weapons mantra supported by 9/11 researchers more levelheaded than yourself. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first 9/11 is a lie.


If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see the creation of this physics defying fairytale about 19 Arabs hijacking planes using box cutters and flying them into buildings based on these false blips on radar screens and crude cartoonist CGI images of planes. You would see the craven sheeple masses believe the lie.

Let's hope that if you were to witness another 9/11 that you wouldn't be arguing on behalf of much of those lies about that event six years later as we see you doing now.

[chek]

Thanks for laying out the NPT myth in full Whoop, though I'm already familiar enough with it.

A few specks of fact mixed in with volumes of invented garbage (and speculation not identified as such is the same as garbage) is the key signature of disinfo.

Are you aware of that, and what you are actually doing?

[Newspeak International]

[eogz]

Nah, I've got, 'Inside Tower 1' on DVD just recently and watched it.

The part I am referring to is the first plane flying low over the streets of new york, the fire fighters look up as they hear it and the camers tracks the sound till you see the plane hitting Tower 1.

Just felt it sounded and looked like a plane, also the fire fighters reacted to the sound of the plane flying over head.

It is about 2 Hours long, the film apart from 9/11 focuses on the Fire Fighters.

[Newspeak International]

Now you've totally confused me eogs:lol:

This is the film I have -Naudet Brothers Documentary '9/11'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/

I know for a fact one scene is staged to appear live, did you know that?

That's showbusiness I guess!

[eogz]

I might be wrong Newspeak, I've a copy, so the person that did it, may have renamed it. Pardon my ignorance, if I'm wrong.

I didn't know about the staged scene, thanks for that.

I'll try not to confuse you anymore, intentionally that is!

[Newspeak International]

If it's the one primarily about a fire dept in NY that just happens to coincide with the events on 9/11, notice the Proby at 09.30 saying the Pentagon was on fire,while looking at the TV.

The problem with that as you probably know is the Pentagon "attack" was
at 09.37!!!

Mistake or deliberate give away, you decide.

[whoop45]

An open letter to chek part 2:

chek writes and I quote:
...If (God forbid) I were to witness a new 9/11 today and shot footage of it...

Maybe this second time around you would make note that not a single front line U.S. airliner had been hijacked since 1973. That spans more than a generation before 9-11-2001. Now, there's a reason for this. Anti hijack mechanisms have been in place since the early 1970s .It's impossible to hijack a Boeing 767 or a 757. Early in the onset of an attempted hijacking some member of the flight crew will key in the four digit "we're being hijacked" code. Word is that on a Boeing 767, for instance, there are 7 different key pad locations throughout the aircraft where a member of the flight crew can type in the four digit code alerting air traffic control that there is hijack situation. In an actual hijacking the plane would be taken over electronically from the ground overriding anything that can be done from the inside the aircraft short of cutting a bunch of wires or disabling the entire electrical system and surely thereby crashing the plane. The plane would be flown by remote control from the ground and any negotiations with hijackers will take place on a tarmac. Notice also that there is no scrambling of fighter jets as part of the anti-hijack S.O.P. Scrambling of fighter jets takes place when an aircraft goes off course and air traffic control is unable to establish radio contact with the flight crew. Scrambling of NORAD fighter jets has no part in any anti hijack S.O.P. Why should it be? Bring it in. Set it down. All this talk about a stand-down of NORAD on 9-11-2002 is pure bunk.The entire concept of Boeing 767s and 757s having been hijacked on 9-11-2001 is pure cockamamie flapdoodle fictitious nonsense. If you were to witness another 9/11 you would see that the whole of what we're told about the first is a lie. Perhaps our older wiser more alert camera clicking chek will be more perceptive during this imagined second time 9/11.

Maybe during this 2nd 9/11 you would notice that the Eisenhower annex (the most beautiful building in Washington, DC -if you ask me) was on fire the morning of 9-11-2001. This was reported somewhat by the Zionist controlled corporate controlled U.S. news media until the 19 Arab hijacker myth started to filter into the news. ABC television in fact broke away at 9:42 AM and showed live footage of the fire. The Eisenhower annex fire -of course - did not fit into the 19 Arab hijacker myth. So the U.S. News media dropped the story. We scarcely heard another thing about it .

Play it again 9/11 you say. Chek has camera in hand and is shooting footage this time. Maybe this 2nd time around you would latch onto the fact that there was an elaborate fail safe operation going on in southern Manhattan the morning of 9-11-2001. Most notably that 14 to maybe 18 foot panel truck with a mural depicting a plane crashing into one of the WTC towers .The truck -so goes the live police video report- was driven as close to the WTC building as possible .Two men vacated the truck and commenced to run. The truck had explosives onboard. The truck exploded. The men were apprehended by NYC police and taken into custody. This event likewise was not widely reported and disappeared quickly from any further mentioning as the 19 Arab hijacker fable was being hatched.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/120B93EA994B43C7A2FF7A6E67F9B4DA/911-tr uth-secondary-failsafe.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL-g_kKgDgE

After this way too much of a bad thing 2nd chance 9/11 you might find yourself recollecting reports about the dancing Israelis episode which truly did get tons of ink in the early days following 9/11. Leminglike craven sheeple Americans soon forgot this widely and actually thoroughly reported series of incidents surrounding the dancing Israelis, because this Manhattan/Burgen County, NJ series of developments did not fit into the 19 Arab hijacker canard. All the talk we heard about the dancing Israelis faded from our collective memories as there was no place for such considerations in the 19 Arab hijacker myth. Take note also that a good 100 or more additional Israelis were imprisoned -some for up to six months- following the events of 9-11-2001. This received almost zero media coverage. Eventually almost all those that were jailed have been released.

A pre 9/11 biography means just that. It means you have a registered birth certificate that by the freedom of information act , any one can request a copy of .Well at least they could ten or so years ago .I couldn't swear to what is going on now as far as that is concerned. It means there are mentionings in some local paper about such thing as your being born,graduating from high school, being on a little league team,being a survivor of a relative as listed in a newspaper obituary those kinds of things. Evan Fairbanks doesn't have such things. You do. So your puerile little ill though-out quip about a pre 8/30 biography is just so much additional bunk.

[telecasterisation]

[Dogsmilk]

It's your round.

[chek]

[gruts]

sometimes you've just got to laugh....

http://realitydown.com/xoops/htdocs/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=Dic ksLittleBook&back=WikiSections