Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply properly. Work has been simply crazy. This is a long rambling post, so if you're interested, get a coffee and
sit back. If not, about four mouse-scrolls should do the trick.
I remember about 6 months ago I was home in Oz for a spell, and a friend called me up and said, "Quick, switch on the TV. There's a 9/11 conspiracy
doco playing with all that stuff you've talked about." I couldn't believe it, a major Australian TV network was broadcasting a 9/11 conspiracy
expose on the tail end of prime time. I switched on the telly and, to my horror, it was David Von Kleist's "In Plane Site
". I quickly called
my friend back and said, "Do NOT watch this film. It is disinformation through and through." Do a google search for "von kleist film 9/11" and
you'll see that every respectable 9/11 research website agrees with me. Missile pods, exploding WTC6, no plane at the Pentagon, no windows on the
planes, everything in that video is BS (IMHO). The really important and unanswered things about 9/11 were completely glossed over, or simply not
addressed at all. Von Kleist has been confronted about these issues and he completely avoids them. The only one he did address was WTC6 when it was
conclusively shown that the "explosion" dust cloud was from the collapse of WTC2, and that the footage he used had been doctored and edited down to
a still frame in order to give a false impression. It seems the reason he addressed this is because his (or their) hand was forced, i.e. damage
The Von Kleist case seems to support the frightening possibility that there is indeed an organized, concerted effort to poison the well in regards to
9/11 information. The damage that videos like Kleist's produce is immeasurable. When the average couch potato who has never heard anything other than
the official story comes across something like that, there is a moment of shocking revelation: "The world is not the safe, simple place I thought it
was". But later, when that same person discovers that all of the information which induced that revelation is completely false, there is a complete
and total psychological reversal, and that person will become one of the most hard-line skeptics in relation to 9/11 conspiracy theory that you could
imagine. This is the ultimate purpose of poisoning the well. It also has the added bonus of hiding the golden nuggets of truth inside a huge mound of
excrement, leaving even the committed researcher bewildered and impotent due to the sheer volume of information; too large for any one person to sift
through. (BTW, it was mainly Von Kleist who set up the pins for PopularMechanics to knock down).
Now, in response to some of the reactions in this thread, I'm forced to digress on my least favorite topic: Me. Firstly, I don't know what all the
fuss is about! Nowhere is it written that I am the final determiner of 9/11 truth. I am simply one man with an opinion, and if I turned around
tomorrow and started Roarking my way around ATS, what difference would it make to the ultimate truths of 9/11? None. I'm surprised and a little
embarrassed by all the declarations of respect for me (which seem to have been destroyed by one post), but I think the reactions here perhaps stem
from some misunderstanding. There have always been many facets of 911 conspiracy which I have considered to be bollocks. For example, I believe that a
passenger jet did indeed hit the Pentagon. But I don't wast my time arguing against it because I think such efforts are counter-productive; I'd
rather spend my time investigating what I believe may be true. I think that having us argue endlessly things like the no-plane theory is a phenomenon
that is engineered by design
. What I DO believe to be a possibility is that Hani Hanjour was not in control of that plane. He may have been on
it, but I seriously doubt he - or anyone else on the plane
for that matter - was piloting it.
But unfortunately more realistic (IMO) theories like that one, which seem to fit with observations, are all squashed under that huge pile of dung I
talked about. And the no-plane theory is one of the bigger, smellier pieces. However my guess is that some folks here have taken my silence on the
matter to equal agreement with the no-plane theory. They'd be wrong. So tomorrow, if I make a post attempting to debunk the no-plane theory, what
would happen? The same as has happened here. In the end, I'm only after the truth, and if that means abandoning theories that appear to be false,
even though they support my opinion, then so be it - booing and heckling be-damned.
Now in regards to 911Eyewitness, I made it very clear from the start when I first posted the thing that the only, repeat the ONLY thing that
interested me about that video was the explosion sounds. The rest of it I clearly stated was IMO either a) old news (e.g. WTC7 collapse time), b) wild
speculation (helicopter flashes), or c) factually incorrect (positive trajectories of debris ejection). Since the video came out, I have had some
interaction with the producer of the video, Rick, on the www, watched others do the same, and watched his behavior from a lurker's standpoint, and
there's always been a niggling in the back of my mind. But there were still those explosion sounds, so I just chalked his behavior up to the
"passion of perceived injustice". I remember a long time ago I found the original video but didn't listen to it carefully. I told Rick about it on
the LetsRoll forums, and basically his reaction was, "Well done, guy...now back to talking about my DVD." Again, I didn't think much of it at the
But recently, with Rick's new film coming out, the claims seem to be even more spurious: dissolving spires and thermonuclear devices are just a
couple of examples. Now I'm not saying that these are definitely wrong, but the wild nature of these claims, coupled with the fact that Professor
Jones and Jim Hoffman do not support these theories, nor indeed the theories of bombs in the basement, spurred me to approach the 911Eyewitness
material again. I dug out that original, unaltered video and had a good listen, and to my ears it sounds exactly like wind blowing across the
microphone. Here's the link again for reference:
You can hear the wind playing lightly across the microphone for the entire time
, and then what sounds like smaller gusts of wind and one larger
one. Now Rick claimed that they did not alter the sound for the DVD in any way apart from removing hiss, but if you go back to the 911Eyewitness video
to compare, you can hear that the constant wind noise has been completely equalized out
, and that the purported "explosion" sound peaks have
been enhanced off their heads
. The rumbling you hear in the build-up to and decay of the explosion sounds appears to be the constant wind sound
being equalized back in, and then out. I've listened to them both a hundred times, with headphones and speakers, with my subwoofer on and off, with
equalization neutral and not, and I just can't hear anything but wind effect; the same wind effect I've heard a thousand times from video recordings
made outside, from blowing across a microphone back in my wannabe-Jimmy Page guitar-playing days, and from reporters with hand held microphones in the
field. Is this a scientific sound analysis? No, of course not, but my ears are telling me that's what it is. I'll be very interested to see what
Billybob comes back with. Furthermore, fast forward to 1:02:32, 1:03:20, and 1:03:40 on the 911Eyewitness video and you will hear the same sounds
WTCs 1, 2 & 7 have all collapsed. I have come across Rick and his alter-ego "911 Eyewitness" on yet another forum and asked him
innocently about it. And the answer, even when pressed? "Buy the DVD and all will be clear, man."
Now with this personal change in my opinion
, suddenly the rest of the Rick "buy my DVD" saga fit into place, as did all the distractions in
his video. When he was on the hard sell for the DVD, he constantly said, "We're going to court with this! Buy it and tell your friends to buy it!
Spread the word!" Six months later: no court case. Instead we get 911Eyewitness II - The Thermonuclear, Melting Spire Edition
, coming to a
cinema near you for the low entry fee of $15.95.
To my mind:
The spurious positive trajectory claim is disinformation, distorting the fact that great lengths of the perimeter simply fell away from the structure
like rotten branches, with the pivot or fulcrum of those sections being many, many floors below the collapse zone, as if the structures were simply
removed of all their connections at once. This fits with the demolition waves racing down the sides of the buildings way ahead of the collapse, which
Billybob, bsbray11, and I have always emphasized. What happens when the average mildly interested observer sees that the positive trajectory claim is
bogus? They stop looking at the debris ejection, period.
The ridiculous pyroclastic flow claim mutes the less exciting but more important fact that the near-complete pulverization of the concrete and
everything else into micro-dust is impossible through gravitational collapse.
The comparison of the seismic energy from the collapses and the inconclusive claim that this implies twice the tonnage of TNT equivalent was used to
destroy WTC1 as WTC2 ignores the fact that a larger amount of debris striking the ground at once will produce a greater signal than smaller, more
time-distributed amounts. As the towers collapsed in slightly different ways, random differences in debris patterns striking the ground could easily
The helicopter flashes I'd put in with the mini-nuke red herring category.
So, have I made a "180 degree turn" and become a hardline 911 debunker? Do I no longer believe that anything needs to be investigated in regards to
911? Does my thread here mean that I no longer believe everything I have claimed in the past in regards to 911 conspiracy? Can what I've posted in
this thread be taken as gospel and the final answer on any of this? Does this mean that the claims in 911 Eyewitness which do have substance are now
also bogus? Since I suspect that no explosions were recorded from kilometers away in Hobokken, does that mean I now believe all the witnesses who
heard explosions were mistaken? A big, fat NO
. I just call it as I see it, and what I think
I see is another well-poisoner just like Von
Kleist. My apologies, Billybob is correct, the title of this thread is inflammatory, and if it weren't too late I would change it to, "911
Eyewitness. A sham? You decide.
Sorry to bore you with this crap, but the reactions really surprised me and I felt some folks whom I consider friends deserved an explanation. To
those who accused me of being brainwashed or altering my opinion because I'm a moderator, I understand your reactions are based on a
misinterpretation and stem from a feeling of betrayal or something like that, so no worries. And thanks to those who have sent me some nice U2Us.
Let the debate continue.
[edit on 2006-6-22 by wecomeinpeace]