obvious amatuer cover-up's

[marky 54]

never im my life i have been so insulted than to be expected to believe 9/11 and 7/7 should be believed without another investigastion or just a investigastion in the case of 7/7. some of the things we were told or shown have been so obvious or amatuerish how can you believe it. example being the photo outside luton station of the 4 bombers with errors clear to see, the pentagon footage and fire bringing down 3 steel buildings the first 3 in history were bound to raise suspitions and thats just a couple of them. its seems to be poorly done for my liking, almost as if this is what they want us to believe for some reason. i always imagined those that did these sort of things to be intellegant or at least carefull when presenting evidence. do they want us to believe 9/11 and 7/7 was a cover up for some reason? or were they delibrate mistakes made from within in order to expose it? i saw the picture of the bombers outside luton station a few months ago on the news, and it had the same errors on it than the one shown at the time of the attacks. if it was an error they wanted to hind surely they would of redoctored it? they would of know about the errors as im sure they visit here and other sites that point them out constantly. its just to hard to believe these errors are by mistake, or am i wrong? would like to know what you guys think. 1.deliberate to expose 2.deliberate for some other purpose 3.they have brains like goldfish

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Thermate]

Anyone got a link to this "magic railings" Luton photo? I've not seen it yet and could use a good laugh

[stav]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cms.met.police.uk/var/me t/storage/images/media/images/cctv_of_terrorist_suspects_at_luton_stat ion/10851-1-eng-GB/cctv_of_terrorist_suspects_at_luton_station_medium. jpg&imgrefurl=http://cms.met.police.uk/news/major_operational_announce ments/terrorist_attacks/police_investigation_continues_into_the_7_7_bo mbings&h=162&w=200&sz=8&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=j3Qjy8OD6LSEiM:&tbnh=84&tb nw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3D7/7%2Bbombers%2Bphoto%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

is the link if you goto google images and type 7/7 london bombers. 1st pic

stav

[Woodee]

what were the errors in the pics? I've not researched this in any depth

[marky 54]

[Wokeman]

marky 54,
No, it's not that, The folks who planned this monumental crime of the century rely on the fact that (a) there are those who believe that this was, as above, (b) those who believe that it was "all a conspiracy theory" and (c) and those who don't give a s..t. I am sorry to report that the majority of people fall into the last two categories, ie (b) and (c)

[numeral]

[numeral]

Note the splodges in front of the faces of the three rear figures.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Hmmmmm seems to me that many of you think that it was a cut and paste job - and the so called terrorists were never there.

Surely nobody would be devious enough to try and make you believe they were there when in fact it they were not.

Whatevever next? - you will have people saying the planes on 911 were never there

[Fallious]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[flamesong]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

No you post what u claim to be genuine - you won't be able cos there are non

[numeral]

Compare the dress rehearsal on 28/6:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4263176.stm

Germaine Lindsay with the same white carrier bag, Khan with his white cap, Tanweer with light trousers and dark top instead of the dark trousers and light top on 7/7.

[flamesong]

[alwun]

Killtown has a comprehensive archive of 911 vids and snaps. Total vids of WTC plane impacts = 33. Many remain unsourced. Unsourced claims on this forum are often met with demands for links and sources, and rightly so.
Here you can count for yourselves - and also, of course, see if you've got a few hundred that they missed.

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

cheers Al..

[Fallious]

Here's another shot from the same vantage point we were discussing in the thread with the 18mb picture. Looks like the photographer was clicking away like crazy..

http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/175-bridge2.jpg

As far as I can see the other two photos what we have identified as his are not on that page.

EDIT: This guy has a freaky dead bird fettish.

[flamesong]

[Fallious]

[alwun]

Oops. Sorry folks. I am commenting on the number of vids of the impacts. Killtown shows 33. Thats all I mean. Of these 33, only 2(two) were shown live. The remainder appeared 'later'.
Someone counted 80 somewhere. Please say where the other 50 are to be seen, because I'm interested.
I am not 'using' them, and neither does killtown. On the killtown site, however, comments are offered off to the right hand side of each featured vid, some of which had been proffered by various media outlets. The comments question in some cases the authenticity of particular vids.. I simply wish to point out that there are not hundreds(so far) available, and this because I have noticed claims on this very forum of hundreds of such videos. Untrue. Incorrect. etc.

cheers Al..

[flamesong]

You could hardly say that killtown is objective!

And I could spend all day trashing the comments on that page - http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

How about this for analysis:

'Photos of 2nd hit' number 14, 'Source unknown'. The photographer's name is on the bleedin' picture - Kathy Cacicedo!

[Fallious]

[alwun]

Hi Fallious,
I'm talking about the videos. On the killtown site there are 33. A number have been shown on different outlets, but there are 33 in total. Now if you know where there are further to these 33 on killtown, or elsewhere tell me and I'll have a look, of course. Only two were shown live. The remainder have appeared at a more leisurely pace. Where from? Why the delay?

Flamesong - I have not suggested that killtown is objective, but the archive of footage is the most comprehensive I've yet seen. Analyses are offered, which one is perfectly at liberty to accept, deny or criticise.
Fallious - We(you and I and others) are discussing elsewhere the recent appearance of a second edition of a vid which appeared for the first time only a couple of months ago, five years on, the delay being explained as due to its 'personal and emotional nature'
Personal? I ask you. Emotional? As if this had been a darkly, perverted, shameful secret which 'Bob and Bri' had harboured until they could could contain it not a minute further. They then ask 'please be respectful of the contents blah blah'. Nobody who posts a vid on the internet can in their right mind demand of the audience anything other than 'be decently yet thoroughly critical'. Otherwise keep it to yourself.

For the record. I did not see anything of the WTC events. I was far away, across the ocean, at work. I was unaware of the existence of the WTC, to the extent that I could not picture the buildings which had been struck. I did not see any footage until that evening. I swallowed the tale whole until the passport showed up, but even then I still thought the alleged perps 'had done it' somehow.
I am not a diehard NP(shhh), but I remain suspicious. I take the point that this can be a divisive issue. That's all.

cheers Al..

P.S. This thread is about the 'photoshop four' My feelings about this is that this image is a genuine fake.

[markwm]

[numeral]

[markwm]

[quote="numeral"]

[numeral]

[alwun]

markwm,

on this thread http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=11370&highlight=#113 70 there are some pics and discussion on this Luton image. There are some slight enlargements(using Photoshop) which highlight the vital importance of this image and its repercussions. There is not a recognisable face to be seen in it, and 99% and more of BritPop(ulation) have been convinced of the guilt of the Leeds four via and only because of this absurd mess of a 'photo' which is purported to be a still from a video.
This is an exercise, largely successful, in mass manipulation by sleight of hand, fed to us by a compliant media, and gobbled by a fearful and compliant public.

cheers Al..

[Woodee]