The True State of Affairs ?

[Indubitably]

Hi there Check,

OK, you say there is no evidence of media fakery in the 'live' television broadcasts of 9/11/2001.

Let's have an online discussion here on this forum to see what's really true. Agree ?

1. Please go to the online series of media footage entitled 'September Clues'. It can be found on Youtube.com and on Google Video as you will surely know.

2. Go to part 3 of 'September Clues' (it's subtitled 'OF MISSILES AND MEN')

3. At the very start of that segment is live broadcast footage from Channel 4. Yes ?

4. That Channel 4 footage was broadcast live from New York from a helicopter and it has live commentary.

5. That footage (which lasts less than 1 minute)M shows a massive explosion and ball of fire occurring from the second tower as the reporters are talking, yes ?

6. That Channel 4 live broadcast does NOT show any plane approaching prior to the massive ball of fire. Yes ?

7. What comment do you have on the above Channel 4 live footage ? Where is the alleged 'plane' in THAT footage ?

8. Can you please point us here on this forum to ONE example from any televised source of a plane hitting the World Trade Centre on 9/11/2001 ? I promise to comment on it if you comment on the above.

Thank You

[Indubitably]

Hi there Check,

OK, you say there is no evidence of media fakery in the 'live' television broadcasts of 9/11/2001.

Let's have an online discussion here on this forum to see what's really true. Agree ?

1. Please go to the online series of media footage entitled 'September Clues'. It can be found on Youtube.com and on Google Video as you will surely know.

2. Go to part 3 of 'September Clues' (it's subtitled 'OF MISSILES AND MEN')

3. At the very start of that segment is live broadcast footage from Channel 4. Yes ?

4. That Channel 4 footage was broadcast live from New York from a helicopter and it has live commentary.

5. That footage (which lasts less than 1 minute)M shows a massive explosion and ball of fire occurring from the second tower as the reporters are talking, yes ?

6. That Channel 4 live broadcast does NOT show any plane approaching prior to the massive ball of fire. Yes ?

7. What comment do you have on the above Channel 4 live footage ? Where is the alleged 'plane' in THAT footage ?

8. Can you please point us here on this forum to ONE example from any televised source of a plane hitting the World Trade Centre on 9/11/2001 ? I promise to comment on it if you comment on the above.

Thank You

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Wohhhh !

You say that the 'plane' is hidden in the live broadcast shots seen from 'September Clues' Part 3.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/e-8_still-wn bc-video-wtc2.jpg

The above still photograph (taken from a similar angle) shows what SEEMS to be a plane. Right. Approaching the South tower. Yes ?

Furthermore, on the very same segment of 'September Clues' Part 3 you can see a video that was broadcast on evening news of 9/11/2001 (it starts at around 1 minute 40 seconds) - the one where the entire background of the river and the city has mysteriously vanished. But the supposed 'plane' is clearly visible in its approach to the South Tower ! The angles between these two different video clips are virtually the same.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT IF, AS YOU SAY, THE SOUTH TOWER HID THE APPROACH OF THE FIRST CLIP ?

It's clear that the evening news broadcast contradicts the live broadcast. One has a 'plane' and the other (as you admit) does not. Mathematically the two different clips contain at least one fake. The live footage of that morning does not show any approach of a plane, as you already admit. Tell us please what significant difference in angle is there between the live broadcast of that morning and the angle of the evening news broadcast ? Very little indeed.

The evening news broadcast clearly shows a 'plane' approaching from the right side of the shot. It shows no river behind and no city landscape in that area. So a 'plane' has been added and the landscape has been removed.

The morning live broadcast has ample space to show any approaching 'plane' of that kind. It shows no plane at all.

Therefore, beyond reasonable doubt, the evening broadcast has been faked.

As for your suggestion that I see '3,000' examples of planes hitting the WTC towers, I asked for just ONE example. Can you give me ONE that will stand criticism ? Choose any you like from the '3000'. I promise to show, scientifically, why it must be and is a fake.

And I will do so comparing it to other supposed 'plane' evidence using nothing but geometry and other indisputable facts.

Let's see whether there are any plane fakes once and for all. The above clip (broadcast on evening news) is clearly an added fake.

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Well, there it is. You can clearly see the approach of a 'plane' on the evening clip that was broadcast on 9.11.2001. Yes ?

Since the 'plane's' flight path was supposedly hidden by the South Tower (for several seconds) in the morning clip how do you explain the 'plane' approach clearly visible FOR SEVERAL SECONDS when filmed from a remarkably similar angle in the evening broadcast ?

You wish that we would learn geometry ? I think you need to study such things yourself.

Above all else, please go away and learn something about people. I too have no time for foolishness. The record from that day speaks for itself. MEDIA FAKERY. BIG TIME.

YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME. BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.

And, as an encore -

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s_ySSJ_L6Zs


Elementary error.

[chek]

[John White]

By heck Chek, you're a generous man

Do you think it's possible your post will help "Indubitably" gain some "perpspective"?

And that silly b* Conan Doyle has something to answer for as well: just becuase a cocaine addled crime obsessive decides that the impossible must be the truth just becuase he can't think of any other explanation is no model for succesful truthseeking

[ian neal]

[chek]

[Indubitably]

In reply -

A single video frame (and video takes 30 frames per second) is proved by analysis to have been sufficient time for the 'plane' to enter the South Tower and for its nose to miraculously exit the other side - ACCORDING TO THE BROADCAST MEDIA FOOTAGE ON THAT DAY. Right ?

Secondly, according to the NIST report (made after the tragedy) the dimensions of each of the twin towers were as follows -

1. 'The planform of each tower was square with each side 63.1m (207 feet)' in length

Source - NISTR 6879

The 'plane' seen in the televised evening news from 9/11/2001 (and you can confirm it by seeing the clip on 'September Clues') is visible for virtually 5 seconds. That is, it's visible for some 150 frames of video. AT LEAST. Notice next that the evening broadcast has the 'plane' approaching the tower from Right to Left as we watch the scene. Yes ?

If this angle of approach is of a plane 'coming from the south' how is the 'plane' so visible for so long in the evening news when it was totally missing from the morning live broadcast ? And why did the editors remove the city and river background in the evening news ? Why did they add board to further obscure our view of the supposed 'plane' approach ??

THE SUPPOSED 'PLANE' THAT WE SEE IN THE EVENING BROADCAST WAS SEVERAL MILES AWAY FROM THE WTC WHEN IT FIRST APPEARS. YES ? IT IS THEREFORE PORTRAYED AS TRAVELLING HUNDREDS OF MILES AN HOUR. YES ?

SINCE THE ABOVE IS MATHEMATICALLY/SCIENTIFICALLY CERTAIN IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE MORNING LIVE VIDEO (TAKEN FROM A HELICOPTER AND BROADCAST LIVE AT A REMARKABLY SIMILAR ANGLE) TO HAVE NOT PICKED UP THE APPROACH OF ANY 'PLANE' IN THE 5 SECONDS OR SO BEFORE THE FIREBALL ERUPTS FROM THE SOUTH TOWER.

The scientific conclusion is obvious and it's inescapable. MEDIA FAKERY. A 'PLANE' WAS ADDED TO VIDEO MATERIAL TAKEN EARLIER AND THE BACKGROUND WAS HIGHLY EDITED.

If not agreed let's submit our calculations/views to a neutral, third party who is qualified in geometry and in other sciences. THIS THIRD PARTY TO BE A JUDGE.

HOW ABOUT IT ?

Don't 3,000 murder victims deserve a detailed, scientific, verdict on the video evidence ?

THEY DO. FOR THE BROADCAST MATERIAL HAS PLAINLY BEEN TAMPERED WITH.

Beyond all reasonable doubt, the lawful media corporations were inflitrated by a small number of carefully placed men and women who, on 9/11/2001, were accomplices to the crimes of 9/11/2001 by assisting in the broadcast of 'plane' images at the WTC that were FAKE.

THE SILENCE OF THESE MEDIA CORPORATIONS FOR THEIR OWN BROADCAST FOOTAGE OF 'PLANES' ON 9/11/2001 IS DEAFENING. THE 'TRUTH' MOVEMENT SHOULD ACTIVELY BE SEEKING FOR THIS MATERIAL TO BE PUBLICLY DISCUSSED AND SCIENTIFICALLY RESOLVED.

IT'S A DISGRACE AND 3,000 MURDER VICTIMS DESERVE BETTER.

LET'S HAVE NO MORE MISINFORMATION FROM THE 'TRUTH MOVEMENT'. LET'S ACTIVELY SUPPORT A PUBLIC HEARING ON ALL 'PLANE' FOOTAGE WITH THESE VIDEO/BROADCAST ISSUES PUBLICLY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND FINALLY RESOLVED USING SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. DO
YOU SUPPORT THIS ? ISN'T THIS WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TRUTH MOVEMENT ?

Thank You

[chek]

In reply -

Instead of sticking to your head back in the sand with your pre-conceived mantra, then waffling irrelevantly about times and broadcasts, writing in BIG ASS LETTERS that impress nobody and grandiose calls for action (which nobody is stopping you from doing anyway) why not address the
evidence you have been presented with?

The only mystery here is why you are so fixed on believing the slick misdirection of old (if cleverly assembled) toss like September Clueless.

Thank You

[spiv]

Indubitably, I thought you'd quit??

[chek]

[Indubitably]

I have presented the broadcast evidence and it could hardly be more clear.

In the live broadcast of that morning the supposed 'plane' is hidden by the South Tower during the many seconds it approached that tower. (During those seconds there is no trace of any 'plane').

But in the clip broadcast on television that evening the approach of the 'plane' to the South Tower is plainly visible for more than 5 seconds. It approaches the tower from the right side and moves to the left.

The angle of photography is as anyone can see very similar in BOTH cases.

Case Closed. Media Fakery. That fakery included removing the background river and city skyline. The addition of a fake 'plane' and also blocking off a large part of the screen with a notice.

[Indubitably]

Spiv,

Yes, I have quit the 'truth movement' in the sense that I see no desire from its members to call the media to account for their fake footage and fake televised output on that tragic day. I have moved from the 'truth movement' to becoming an individual who believes it (the 'truth movement') is no longer pressing for truth on these issues. I've suddenly realised it never has.

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Chek,

You really can't continue with this nonsense, can you ?

The angles at which these two videos were taken ARE, to all intents and purposes, virtually identical. See 'September Clues' for them being presented side by side. No argument. In fact one is derived from the other and it was 'massaged'. The evening news broadcast has manipulated the very images that were broadcast live that same morning. It has faked some details. But the angles of both versions are very similar. As everyone can see.

You don't tell us if the alleged 'plane' was several miles from the twin towers as it enters the shot broadcast on the evening news. Please confirm this. For, if the 'plane' was flying at hundreds of miles an hour it, mathematically/scientifically, MUST have been literally miles from the tower when it first appeared on that evening newscast footage, right ?

My mind is not closed. The mathematics is already irrefutable.

Can you tell us why the background has disappeared in the evening news clip ? Can you explain why the clip has a notice that obscures our view of the scene ? No. That too is manipulation.

Chek, you can't have filmed 'plane' flying at hundreds of miles an hour from right to left of a fixed point for over 5 seconds without it being miles away from that point at the starting point of such a film, can you ? Can you tell us how the 'plane' you see appears to be flying from right to left of the twin towers on the evening film but is totally absent from the morning film ? How about giving us a simple geometrical diagram explaining this amazing and totally fantastic solution ? I bet you can't do it. In fact, I know you can't.

The cultists are those who talk big but can't win their arguments in a fair, open discussion in front of the public. They are those who, on simple, plain, mathematical facts have nothing but abuse and insults to offer.

So a 'plane' can fly from right to left, approaching the South Tower, this for more than 5 seconds and yet remain completely hidden from another film of the very same event, despite both films being made from virtually the same angle in respect of the towers themselves.

Gee, who taught you that ?

Media fakery. Plain and simple.

[eogz]

I reckon the saying 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind here.

[Indubitably]

Since mathematics and the facts of science are arbiters in deciding this issue of two different televised video broadcasts of a supposed plane hitting the South Tower of the WTC on 9.11.2001 (though filmed from very similar angles) then, you see, there is an inevitable verdict. You see clearly which side of this debate IS urging a fair, open, public trial on the mathematical/scientific facts of this issue ? Yes, NPT.

Let's stop fudging the issue. Let's have a fair and open hearing on this issue and on 9/11 media fakery generally, starting with this case, and let's abide by its neutral and impartial scientific/mathematical findings, these made openly and publicly for all to see.

If you are so sure there is no broadcast fakery of 'plane' images on 9.11.2001 then name the venue, the time for such a public meeting, and let's get some mathematical/video experts to be the judges. We can then sort this out publicly.

The only 'dead horse being flogged' has been dead a long time. It's those whose role is solely to misinform.

The much altered televised evening broadcast of a 'plane' appears more than 5 seconds before the fireball. It consists therefore of more than 150 frames of material. That means the plane travelled at least 150 widths of the South Tower - several miles. Yet no plane is visible in the morning film of the same event taken by a helicopter and broadcast live from a very similar angle.

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Well Chek, we can see the two different video clips side by side in 'September Clues' (as I have already said several times). Agreed ?

1. The evening broadcast version has had its background removed. Yes ? We cannot see the river or buildings on the far side of the river. Yes ? What caused these details to be omitted ? THEY WERE EDITED OUT. Right ?

2. I have already agreed in previous posts that the morning live broadcast is so similar in angle (in respect of the twin towers) to the evening broadcast that the substantive issue is unaffected.

The substantive issue is this - the evening broadcast shows a plane approaching the twin towers NOT from BEHIND the South Tower, but FROM RIGHT TO LEFT OF THE CLIP. In other words, contrary to your assertion, the approach of the 'plane' was NOT hidden by the South Tower but is highly visible. It takes at least 5 whole seconds to arrive at a point where the fireball is created and is in view for most of that time. More than 150 frames of video.

How do you explain this, mathematically ?

[chek]

[Indubitably]

They are two different broadcasts, yes. The differences are of degree. In fact, this issue is one of degree and it's our task to see if they can be resolved, mathematically. Mathematically, can you provide an explanation of how one of these televised broadcasts shows the approach of a 'plane' whilst the other does not, despite both focusing on the twin towers from a similar point of reference ? If you can reconcile these two different clips, mathematically, then, of course, I will agree entirely.

But, as things stand, I see no possible reconciliation of these two different broadcasts. This (plus the obvious editing of the background in the evening broadcast) lead me to the conclusion that the evening broadcast has been highly edited and that a fake 'plane' has been inserted.

Still, yes, I wait to see your mathematical justification for saying that no fakery is involved in either broadcast.

[chek]

I'll supply a pixel width analysis later on when I get home from work to clearly demonstrate that the two shots, while looking superficially similar, are from very different viewpoints.

If you want to be prepared, I'd advise you to do the same because as previously pointed out, imprecise terms such as 'virtually the same' are inadmissible in this phase.

[Indubitably]

Well, Chek, you can submit any sort of evidence you like. But what we are waiting for (and what you have not supplied) is an explanation of how a plane can visibly approach a fixed object for over 5 seconds, travelling from right to left of the scene while, another earlier broadcast taken of the same event shows no trace of any 'plane' - this despite the fact (as you agree) that the location of the filmer in both cases is virtually the same in respect of the object that it supposedly collides with.

You have previously stated that the plane was hidden by the South Tower during its approach in the morning broadcast live. Yet you must now explain how the 'plane' is highly visible (for around 5 seconds), travelling right to left, in the evening broadcast. It's this little problem that I leave for you to resolve, here on this forum. It is, as you see, the acid test. A simple diagram of the supposed 'plane' angle of flight in those final seconds will suffice. Can you give one ?

P.S. The still frames you provided earlier in this thread are of the SAME tower. What we need is a still frame of BOTH towers. Right ? LOL !!!!

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Chek,

Let's not confuse ourselves. Let's study the actual broadcast footage.

1. The actual broadcast footage (both morning AND evening broadcasts) show the North Tower (gashed) and its antenna standing in both broadcasts to the right of the South Tower. Yes ?

BUT

The schematic diagram you posted earlier in this thread (obtained from Killtown but duplicating the North Tower in your post here) shows the very OPPOSITE. It shows the North Tower located to the left of the South Tower. In other words you are reversing the actual scene on these two films.

To avoid confusion let's examine the actual footage. With the North Tower standing to the right of the South Tower. That's how it appears, as already said, in both broadcasts now under examination.

Thanks

[chek]

[Indubitably]

You are in danger of confusing people.

To keep these issues simple let's agree the North Tower is standing to the right of BOTH broadcasts in question (i.e. the live morning broadcast and also the evening broadcast).

It's these two broadcasts which give us our perspective.

You say the evening broadcast has no fakery. Yet it's already been established (and you have said nothing of it) that the river and other background to the scene has been edited/removed from the evening broadcast. Please admit this. Can you agree this evening broadcast has been manipulated in at least this respect ?

The evening broadcast shows what seems to be a plane, approaching the twin towers from the right of the shot travelling left. It appears to fly for over 5 seconds. It is visible for most of that time. If it really is a plane it travelled several miles as it approaches the twin towers. Right ?

How do you reconcile this evening broadcast with that of the morning, mathematically ? For you stated earlier that the plane was not visible in the morning shot because it was hidden by the South Tower.

We wait to see your answer.