is the full recording of USA Today's Mike Walter's interview on the Pentagon hit. As you can confirm, he says " I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out... "
Genghis' great classic, "Unbelievable," STARTS this clip at "It was like a cruise missile with wings... " _________________ http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Lee, they are good spirited people. Their problem is following. If they had to do their own research they might actually do something right. What you have here is a failure to communicate. These poor shills, you understand a shill is someone who goes out to sing the praises of someone’s product or story that really knows nothing about it, or knows it is bad. Well, these poor shills for genghis have "faith." Faith in genghis and they know something is wrong. They are expert in nothing and are just trying. I mean the plane melting into the south tower without exploding certainly can bring around a head or two and then you are ready for anything.
Genghis is merely doing 911 truth when he quote mines, they all do it. Try and find someone that does not? That is the lies in 911 truth and lies. That is why you have to stand and think for yourself.
But the real truth lee? Its all bs until enough pissed people are ready to take to the streets. Until then you are theirs to do with what they want. If they disarm you and convince you the only way to change is chanting and petitions you are dead meat. Better than dead meat for them, you are slave meat.
To clear up just one of the many errors in 911cham. that jfk posted in response to the analysis of "flying telephants" in September Clues...
Regarding the second clip which is compared to the legendary "divebomber" clip.
Here we see the first frame of the second clip at 1:16 by the films own timing.
Note 1:16 seconds.
Here is a frame of the impact in the same clip at 1:20 by the films own timing.
Note 1:20 seconds.
That's four seconds from the appearance of the plane to impact.
Therefore, that is when the comparison should begin with the first "divebomber" clip to eek out any anomalies between the two flight paths..
But before we do the comparison between the two clips, let's clear up some misdirection on the part of the film maker.
He/she claims that the flight path in the second clip is a straight line.
Here they ask the question...Is that a straight line
To which they reply...'uhhuh'
Even though it clearly isn't a straight line. It isn't even straight with the top of the large red letters.
It has a small gradient, as highlighted here with the red bracket that I have added by squaring the gradient with a black colour board and measuring the gap from plane to impact as highlighted with the films own red flight-path line.
Here we can go back to the divebomber clip, four seconds from impact by the films own timing. This time with the gradient-measuring bracket added from the end on perspective.
Note 0:29 seconds. Four secs to impact.
Then, keeping the bracket in place at impact we see the plane has indeed impacted within the gradient area...
Please note that the red-bracket is exactly the same height above the orange "site-lines" provided in the film.
Therefore, the four seconds from plane to impact in both clips show exactly the same flight path.
They are not different. Apart from in the sense of perspective.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject:
911Eyewitness wrote:
Lee wrote:
No answers from them...
How totally and utterly predictable.
Lee, they are good spirited people. Their problem is following. If they had to do their own research they might actually do something right. What you have here is a failure to communicate. These poor shills, you understand a shill is someone who goes out to sing the praises of someone’s product or story that really knows nothing about it, or knows it is bad. Well, these poor shills for genghis have "faith." Faith in genghis and they know something is wrong. They are expert in nothing and are just trying. I mean the plane melting into the south tower without exploding certainly can bring around a head or two and then you are ready for anything.
Genghis is merely doing 911 truth when he quote mines, they all do it. Try and find someone that does not? That is the lies in 911 truth and lies. That is why you have to stand and think for yourself.
But the real truth lee? Its all bs until enough pissed people are ready to take to the streets. Until then you are theirs to do with what they want. If they disarm you and convince you the only way to change is chanting and petitions you are dead meat. Better than dead meat for them, you are slave meat.
Rick, please - enough.
Don't you realise that you're only supposed to wear a black hat or a white hat? Shades of grey are not permitted.
Of course we realise that gengles, jfk, and sidlittle and etcetera are only unable to critically evaluate that which is difficult enough to unravel.
But they're somehow encouraged to go ahead anyway with less than optimal or downright uninformed interpretations of the data. But the bottom line is - as you so eloquently put it - that they know something's wrong.
However it's all too easy to lose sight of that because if the nonsense un-reasons that are employed in support by the 'exotic theory continuum' can be so easily discounted by those already predisposed to viewing the Official Narrative as false, what chance do they have of swaying the uncommitted and 'ignorant-of 911-underneath- the myth-but-not-that-ignorant'?
Perhaps there is a mighty contingent of fringe-theory theorists out there - but by definition they're fringe theorists and readily ignorable.
Just like the rest of us who normally aren't but have become so, just by not swallowing the government dick of a story.
Off topic and off the wall, two questions if I may Rick.
1. While highly unlikely in that it makes little difference now she's promoting the life and trials of Ernst Zundel video on her website, but assuming Sofia Sasquatch had replaced the disputed '911 Mysteries' footage using first hand material guaranteed as authentic in every way by you - would that have resolved anything between you? And of course why didn't she seek to.
2. Why do you think anybody with direct experience heartily dislikes the Killtown persona?
All total irrelevancies that have no meaning whatsoever as the world turns regardless, but hey - its a slow week. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Perhaps there is a mighty contingent of fringe-theory theorists out there - but by definition they're fringe theorists and readily ignorable.
To the vast majority all within these forums qualify chek.
chek wrote:
Off topic and off the wall, two questions if I may Rick.
1. While highly unlikely in that it makes little difference now she's promoting the life and trials of Ernst Zundel video on her website, but assuming Sofia Sasquatch had replaced the disputed '911 Mysteries' footage using first hand material guaranteed as authentic in every way by you - would that have resolved anything between you? And of course why didn't she seek to.
Yeah, it not just off topic, but asking my personal feeling and thoughts.
When I saw that video in Oct of 06 I sent her email asking how she had thought she had rights and got lies back. She never provided paper even to the lies (she claimed the shipping clerk, James Brewster gave her rights). I dropped it because it is too expensive to pursue for merely copyrights. Her arrogance in just sending lawyers to tell me to shut up or go to court threw me for a loop. Humans, artists just do not act like that. Generally, in a mooovement trying to work together when you made a mistake you should be more than willing to communicate and work it out. Not here, the opposite. She, Jones, 911blogger, all of you decided this was divisive instead of undestanding there was a liar in the midst.
In February 07 I found the edits and alterations and got very angry. I demanded removal and apology and got her and Fetzer on his audio stream pretending lies are okay and what's wrong with me not liking a few lies applied to edited cartoons made of my video?
chek, it will soon make a big difference to the Pakistan agent Sofia Shafquat because the legal papers are finished and after the anniversary conferences they will be filed. Every 911 mysteries video will be pulled from youtube and google. I don't care if I do not get money from it, the idea is she must pay and not garner from the lies. What she did is change my video into a lie and tell everyone that’s my video. That is an even bigger crime than copyright theft and there are other laws against that kind of crime which she will be charged with. She is a real criminal.
You are only now finding out what a Shaylerite she was for the mooooovement. Her partners and inspiration were Hufschmid, Jayhan, and she supported lies. She tried to pass herself off as a natural American (Indian) and is a born and bred Pakistani. Her education was in advanced psychological propaganda writing at Brown! How does a Pakistani woman get from being a trained propaganda writer to leading the 911 truth?
Two years now I have been screaming and now a few wake up to her agenda. The woman changed something, denies it, calls me the liar and makes me the bad guy for wanting lies fixed? Two years she sold 50,000 dvds, rights to TV globally, and made appearences all over the USA. Each time the altered video is sold or seen is a blemish on me. I will demand compensation.
See chek, if she fixed the video she has to admit to lies. So even though she would remove Hufschmid from the video (as demanded by 911truth to sell her dvd) she would not change back, remove as asked, or acknowledge my points. When people asked in conferences she would act mad at being accused, claim how could you take a Jew's word like Siegel over the patriot Shafquat who spent all her money (what a load of nonsense - she is living in a $675,000 home) on telling the truth and storm off the stage.
Even you have to wonder if she actually would be human, fix the errors? Chek, there were no errors. Video comes with audio on a track and that audio has to be replaced for this stuff to happen. Helicopters do not disappear, etc. Why she does it? Who knows? But she did it, would not admit, fix, try to communicate or repair anything. What kind of human is that? It is not errors when you do something on purpose. That is an agenda.
chek wrote:
2. Why do you think anybody with direct experience heartily dislikes the Killtown persona?
All total irrelevancies that have no meaning whatsoever as the world turns regardless, but hey - its a slow week.
I am not sure I understand your question here. No one is sure of the anonymous identity. It is huge marks on logic or reason to allow fame, unquestioned believability, or even give such an entity attention when it demands anonymity. Like agents before it was banned at my site pretty fast.
chek, only a fool thinks the 911 truth mooovements are not infiltrated. Each of the poliitical arrests last week in the USA were made from information given the government by embeded informants.
It is why I keep talking about organizational independence.
My first trip 'here' for many a moon. I didn't know quite what to expect, but to see the incredibly low volume of literary traffic was not it!
For some, subjects such as 9/11 have unquestionably taken a back seat to the more pressing issues of just keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table. Or perhaps there are other issues I am unaware of here, but due to changes in my circumstances, I've not had a domestic computer on for months, so am out of touch with gossip and developments.
Guess there ain't anywhere now you can find a good debate on holes in The Pentagon wall or aircraft tyres on Manhattan sidewalks?
My condolences for the way things have evolved, it was fabulous once, but those days have gone forever. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Guess there ain't anywhere now you can find a good debate on holes in The Pentagon wall or aircraft tyres on Manhattan sidewalks?
Maybe, just maybe Tele, you could find a debate of sorts about holes in the Pentagon here
Whether they are the holes in the Pentagon you're looking for, have found, or would like to revisit, or holes in the Pentagon story, or holes in the on-line debate about the alleged hole in the Pentagon, which mustn't be debated, or, indeed were any of the holes that were once denied or admitted, by anyone, and then not, is up to you, the reader.
Enjoy ! _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Did you read the entire thread. It appears as though you did not.
Contrarian, can you live up to your name and be the exception to the rule within the fakery-cult..?
Are you willing to admit that the difference in length between the so called divebomber clip and the one from across the river (as discussed on page 1 of this thread) invalidates their comparison?
As discussed, the river-clip is five seconds shorter than the divebomber clip, therefore the divebombing (so-called) has ended by the time the river-clip starts.
This is a fact because of the difference in length.
If you are unwilling to accept this fact then have you been cult-conditioned?
This may also help you to understand the MASSIVE difference in perpective of the two clips.
This may also help you to understand the MASSIVE difference in perpective of the two clips.
[/youtube]
Good luck.
I timed the two sections of the video I referenced to. The level flight was 9 secs. The 'level' part of the dive bomb 2 secs. Please view the evidence I presented it will only take a minute. rodin is back by the way (on a yellow card)
I attacked no planers for poor evidence before but this seems different. Plus it does not compute with what you say, unless the 'level flight' video is a fake.
How reliable is BrassCheckTV? I thought they were pretty good?
edit on viewing clip
This is not the film comparison I am referencing. I have been thru that debunk myself in fact as rodin. I think I posted on it at the time here _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject:
Well well well, I watched the video you linked to and it seems the September Clues bunch have revised their misleading comparison.
They've shaved of a few seconds of the divebomber clip to make the comparison more "legitimate".
If you look at page one of this thread the screen shot from september clueless ( the third picture down on page one ) has the arrow much higher and starts when the plane first enters the screen from above the towers.
The original timing on this thread was from when they used the whole divebomber clip from an earlier version of SC.
The version you linked to has it start at the point at which the other clip begins. With about 8 seconds to impact.
It was nice to be of service.
Now all they have to do is admit that the massive difference in perspective in the two clips, as shown in the model (video above), creates the perceived difference in the flight paths and - voila ! Many freed from a cult instantly...
Now for the Tottenham Court Road Scientologists...
Well well well, I watched the video you linked to and it seems the September Clues bunch have revised their misleading comparison.
They've shaved of a few seconds of the divebomber clip to make the comparison more "legitimate".
If you look at page one of this thread the screen shot from september clueless ( the third picture down on page one ) has the arrow much higher and starts when the plane first enters the screen from above the towers.
The original timing on this thread was from when they used the whole divebomber clip from an earlier version of SC.
The version you linked to has it start at the point at which the other clip begins. With about 8 seconds to impact.
It was nice to be of service.
Now all they have to do is admit that the massive difference in perspective in the two clips, as shown in the model (video above), creates the perceived difference in the flight paths and - voila ! Many freed from a cult instantly...
Now for the Tottenham Court Road Scientologists...
Look I don't known about any other clip versions but the 2 clips I refer to are back to back on the new 'Clues' cut, and at the start of the Brasscheck video. One clearly shows 8-9 seconds of level flight along the horizon. The other clearly shows a plane dropping quickly in altitude referenced by the tower edge, before levelling out 2 seconds before impact. So one shot has about 2 secs level flight the other 8+ seconds of level flight. The first shot is the so called 'Al Qaeda' video so may well be a forgery, but it was broadcast as genuine.
Now I look at the full Sept Clues videos I am of the opinion a winged cruise missile impacted both buildings not the original flights. I think the original flights were commandeered by remote control and/or agents on board the planes and landed somewhere.
Now the question must be asked - why no amateur footage of cruise missile impacts? I agree, it is a stumbling block. But the 2 bits of footage I reference prove beyond any doubt one was faked.
As for non-planted witness - at the speed of the event they cannot be sure what they saw, though most report a smaller aircraft.
I used to think this line or research was a red herring - not now. I think I owe David Shayler an apology. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:29 am Post subject:
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
Well well well, I watched the video you linked to and it seems the September Clues bunch have revised their misleading comparison.
They've shaved of a few seconds of the divebomber clip to make the comparison more "legitimate".
If you look at page one of this thread the screen shot from september clueless ( the third picture down on page one ) has the arrow much higher and starts when the plane first enters the screen from above the towers.
The original timing on this thread was from when they used the whole divebomber clip from an earlier version of SC.
The version you linked to has it start at the point at which the other clip begins. With about 8 seconds to impact.
It was nice to be of service.
Now all they have to do is admit that the massive difference in perspective in the two clips, as shown in the model (video above), creates the perceived difference in the flight paths and - voila ! Many freed from a cult instantly...
Now for the Tottenham Court Road Scientologists...
rodin wrote:
Look I don't known about any other clip versions...
You see, from august 2008. They've changed the divebomber clip's length. Not such a watertight theory afterall. Where is jfk when he needs us?
What else might they change I wonder.
Quote:
I used to think this line or research was a red herring - not now. I think I owe David Shayler an apology.
Maybe you could give it to him personally in 2012 when he pitches up on Glastonbury Tor or wherever it is to sing Greensleeves to the sky as instructed by God.
Just chuck in a quick "sorry" before he performs his duty as the second coming...
They've shaved of a few seconds of the divebomber clip to make the comparison more "legitimate"... You see, from august 2008. They've changed the divebomber clip's length. Not such a watertight theory afterall.
OK I have studied this in higher precison using perspective drawing guides to better calibrate what is going on.
level clip 8 secs
This clip shows level flight OK, but as the plane is getting larger we must account for the perspective of the approach. In other words it is in a slow steady decline that gives the impression of being parallel with the horizon
However, projections from the tower indicate that it is at or below tower height for the final 8 seconds of flight.
dive clip
The original is longer and shows more of the dive. Of course, the dive is not what interests us here - it is the portion of level or at least steady shallow decline flight
From the moment the plane appears below the smoke (approx level with line-of sight the tower roof, but obviously from perspective view higher) til moment of impact - about 8-9 secs. However, the plane is approaching from the far side of the building, and so would appear a bit lower in the horizon in both shots than a straight line-of roof projection would imply
conclusion?
Yes the film is suggesting there is a far bigger difference in flight paths than there actually is once you get down to it. Is this deliberate or simply someone trying to put together a thesis without rigorously checking the evidence?
Is there actually a difference in flight path? I would have to say now this is inconclusive and not blatantly obvious as I first thought.
I am not dismissing the CGT plane thesis out of hand though. Nor accusing the maker of the film a disinfo agent. After all, I was 'convinced' about the disparity of flight path because on first sight it seems so drastic, but then rechecked to find it more subtle. Plus there are many anomalies brought out by the film-maker.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject:
rodin wrote:
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
They've shaved of a few seconds of the divebomber clip to make the comparison more "legitimate"... You see, from august 2008. They've changed the divebomber clip's length. Not such a watertight theory afterall.
Not wanting to be pendantic, but where have they shaved from the dive bomber clip exactly?
I hate to be pedantic but do you mean "pedantic"? Given the basic spelling mistake and your unobservational skills it seems pedantry may well be beyond you.
It really is quite simple. The livevideo version of the divebomber clip as you say has the divebomber clip at 8 seconds.
BUT an earlier version of SC from a "simonshack" youtube channel no less has it at, well...
Start of clip @ 0:38...
Impact @ 0:52...
Simple mathematics gives us - dun dun duuuuun!!!! - 14 seconds give or take a few hundredths.
Now, although this is an assumption, I'm taking it that the new 8 second Divebomber clip is from a new version of SC.
After this glaring error ( ie comparing a clip of 14 seconds (divebomber) with a clip of 8 seconds (fbi clip) was pointed out by myself and others (see page one of this thread) they have had to revise the fakery-cult film and make the clip seem more legit.
By legit I mean with the clips at the same length, because comparing clips of different lengths means that there is already a discrepancy within the clips before comparison. That means that before you start comparing the clips, they are already different so nothing has been proven other than they are different lengths.
By making the clips the same lengths, the Shackites (no rhyming slang intended) have conceded that their original analysis was bogus.
That is of course if the live video link that has been linked to on this page is from a more recent version of the deceptive and misleading SC.
Now, and this is really important for you to try and grasp, the MASSIVE difference in perspective of the two clips. They are from totally different angles of positioning and perspective.
In the divebomber clip we see only half/two thirds of the towers.
In the FBI clip we see a lot more than that, we see the river, many other buildings and the whole of the towers (obscured by buildings) from ground level.
The two clips are also from a different positioning ie - around a 90 degree angle.
Thus the 'planes' were filmed from a different perspective and positioning.
With that fact in mind I refer you once again to the 3-D model video provided.
The angle of the dive bomber flight path...
Looks very steep doesn't it. Oh so divebomber like...but from the same angle as the FBI clip but on the opposite side...
Not so steep afterall is it? Although admittedly by the filmaker it is a crude model. But it works.
As for the jfk mix-up, I meant the jfk who started this thread, not the 35th President of the USA.
Again it seems you are not quite as pedantic as you first thought.
Actually I was editing my last post as you were preparing this. I can spell very well but typos get thru.
edit
Having read above post -
Thanks for the taking the time and trouble
I agree with the basic explanation of why the paths seems so drastically different. In any case, on reflection, CGI or not, it would be surprising if such a basic error were made.
r
edit
There is quite a difference between the relative scale of level flight path and tower dimensions between the model and the day, don't you think? And even at that the wire path is running out of straight.
Seems everyone has a tendency to persuade... _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:00 pm Post subject:
rodin wrote:
Actually I was editing my last post as you were preparing this. I can spell very well but typos get thru.
edit
Having read above post -
Thanks for the taking the time and trouble
I agree with the basic explanation of why the paths seems so drastically different...
It's always nice to see someone prepared to admit they may not have it right. Editing the post above my last one does destroy continuity somewhat though.
However, you have to be the first advocate of TVF I have ever conversed with that has reassessed their position on what they first believed after viewing SC.
All previous interactions have resulted in a total "you're wrong, that's it" reaction followed by accusations of "protecting mass murderers".
It seems to be the ethos of most TVF believers to be maliciously aggressive toward anyone who questions their 'evidence'.
Given this almost blanket behaviour from them, one has to wonder, is it encouraged by those who are behind the material and if so what does that imply?.
rodin wrote:
There is quite a difference between the relative scale of level flight path and tower dimensions between the model and the day, don't you think? And even at that the wire path is running out of straight.
The model maker has himself conceded that the model is not to scale and is a crude prototype but it proves the point that perspective is the key factor to perceived differences in the flight paths.
It looks very steep from one angle, not so steep from another. What more do you need?
The wire is "running out of straight" as you put it but that's the point. The flight path wasn't a straight line even though perspective makes it appear that way in the FBI clip.
rodin wrote:
Seems everyone has a tendency to persuade...
Not least those behind the Cult of TVF.
In the end they have altered the clip comparison because they had to in order to keep it...persuasive.
There are so many more inaccuracies in their so called evidence. Take a look at this...
A real plane slices through a real building leaving very little debris. Witnesses didn't see a plane, media employees called into live broadcasts as eyewitnesses, photographs show people looking in different directions.
is this "debate" really still going on? oh dear....
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
There are so many more inaccuracies in their so called evidence. Take a look at the links below Chek's sig. and this...
A real plane slices through a real building leaving very little debris. Witnesses didn't see a plane, media employees called into live broadcasts as eyewitnesses, photographs show people looking in different directions.
I quite enjoyed writing the OP in that thread, but I have to say that although the "no planes" cult is frankly laughable, it's also deeply sad.
telecasterisation wrote:
My first trip 'here' for many a moon. I didn't know quite what to expect, but to see the incredibly low volume of literary traffic was not it!
For some, subjects such as 9/11 have unquestionably taken a back seat to the more pressing issues of just keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table. Or perhaps there are other issues I am unaware of here, but due to changes in my circumstances, I've not had a domestic computer on for months, so am out of touch with gossip and developments.
Guess there ain't anywhere now you can find a good debate on holes in The Pentagon wall or aircraft tyres on Manhattan sidewalks?
My condolences for the way things have evolved, it was fabulous once, but those days have gone forever.
my first visit for many a moon too.
keep smiling.... _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
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
