New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

I saw it my dear. All the altered and edited and time lapsed tinkering in the world won't erase the images that are in my mind because they were seen without the scrawl, without the clock, without the banner alerting me to the channel. They were seen thru the crystal clear skies of that warm sunny morning.

Its posts like this that really make me believe planes hit those towers.These folks that were there and witness that horrendous event unfold with their very own eyes,not on a tv screen. I am sure that day will be etched into their minds till the day they pass away.This is why I can't grasp what the videos are arguing.

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
How anyone, with even half a wit, could just dismiss this evidence is beyond me.

How anyone, with even half a wit, could dismiss the thousands of eyewitnesses, who watched the events unfold from their apartments, offices and from the street is beyond this eye witness.

I saw it my dear. All the altered and edited and time lapsed tinkering in the world won't erase the images that are in my mind because they were seen without the scrawl, without the clock, without the banner alerting me to the channel. They were seen thru the crystal clear skies of that warm sunny morning.

If you suppose that your claim to be an actual eyewitness will prevent me, by reason of sentimentality or some such, from asking you to offer proof of that, .... well as you can now see it does not.

I can clearly see, with my own eyes, that the Media coverage is not only biased, being naught but war propaganda, it is even very obviously bogus.

My own eyes, my eyes and good sense, tell me it was all faked, and both myself and my spouse thought the same thing, ... as we watched it on TV that very day.

I will also not simply dismiss the fact, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed into the Pentagon, just because several eye witnesses, all chocked up, swear through tear stained eyes on TV that they saw it happen either.

I have met seemingly stable people, who swear they met Elvis, and many others who swear they were taken aboard alien space ships also.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Truth is, it the plane huggers who need extraordinary proof at this point, because all of the media and "amateur" footage is solid evidence, .... against their ridiculous claims.

Media mind control has all of your brains turned inside out.

I say, prove your claim that you saw these things, because the real evidence says the media coverage is entirely BOGUS, and it remains a fact, that flimsy aluminum aircraft cannot fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings as if they are made of tissue paper.

Originally posted by crowpruitt

I saw it my dear. All the altered and edited and time lapsed tinkering in the world won't erase the images that are in my mind because they were seen without the scrawl, without the clock, without the banner alerting me to the channel. They were seen thru the crystal clear skies of that warm sunny morning.

Its posts like this that really make me believe planes hit those towers. These folks that were there and witness that horrendous event unfold with their very own eyes,not on a tv screen. I am sure that day will be etched into their minds till the day they pass away.This is why I can't grasp what the videos are arguing.

I imagine that you don't don't just blindly accept the claims, of the many thousands of those who swear they have been aboard alien space ships and met the "lizard people", and so why do you allow yourself to be swayed by her claim?

The evidence is against her claim, just as it against the claims of alien abductees, even though there are many thousands of them, and many of them appear credible.

I am not saying she is lying, or crazy, and I bet she really believes it too. I can't explain how or why she believes she saw planes. But I do know, that the greatest body of evidence very strongly indicates, that the media coverage of 911 was intentionally faked.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Truth is, it the plane huggers who need extraordinary proof at this point, because all of the media and "amateur" footage is solid evidence, .... against their ridiculous claims.

Media mind control has all of your brains turned inside out.

Tell me, do you realise how complicated it would be to get those planes to land somewhere else in order for there to be no planes hitting the towers? The idea that the footage is proof is like peeling just the skin off an apple to get to the core.

So tell me, were all the air traffic controllers bribed in order to get those planes to land at an undisclosed location in order for the planes to disappear? Considering there is a separate controller for about every 15 minutes of the flight, particularly in busy airspace like that over the US. And after that, what happened to the planes and the people on them? The planes would need to be destroyed, since the airlines and everyone else would know which planes were destroyed, so for them to show up at some strange location would be difficult to get away with. And what then happened to the passengers? Were they killed afterwards, as they could never be released since to do so would blow the story wide open. And if you say it would have been easy for the government to kill them, I think it would be easier to crash them into a building if the government were responsible.

And then, how did the wreckage get there in NY and in Pennsylvania, and Washington. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof after all.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Truth is, it the plane huggers who need extraordinary proof at this point,

Common now......

Let's not start a new word again with plane huggers...

It's enough that some people call other people no planers let's not start calling others plane huggers.....

Enough with these invented words.....

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Natasha_ThompsonThat is both wholly unfair, and it is also but a thinly veiled personal attack.

And think about the not so 'thinly veiled personal' attacks those presenting no-plane theories are making against reporters and media commentators, professional and amateur photographers, firefighters and EMTs, as well as the ordinary men and women of New York.

Once agian, you are going for emotional appeal, rather than employing loigic or any facts to bolster your postition.


Sorry, but the evidence makes it very clear, that the media put us all on but good.

I don't make any assumptions, about the motives of all of the media people involved, for their obvious cooperation with the NWO war machine. I am sure, that many media people, knew nothing of what was even going on.

It may very well be that in many cases, they were deceived into believing that they were doing the right thing, and the ends justify the means. National security and all that. History is full of examples of such.

NORTHWOODS PEAR HARBOR VIET NAM THE PANAMA INVASION and so much more .... like the IRAQ OCCUPATION.

The media big shots though, are rotten to the core, and they are a HUGE part of the reason why the world is now burning down around our ears. They lie knowingly, daily, and they do it for the money and power.

Place your outrage where it really belongs, and that is upon those who use the media as a weapon, .... against all of us daily.

To say we dare not question the LIES fed to us, "less we offend somebody", is just absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Truth is, it the plane huggers who need extraordinary proof at this point,

Common now......

Let's not start a new word again with plane huggers...

It's enough that some people call other people no planers let's not start calling others plane huggers.....

Enough with these invented words.....

Fair enough. Let me ask you a fair question though.

How many times, have you admonished others here in this thread, such as those using terms like "no planers" and even far worse ?

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Once agian, you are going for emotional appeal, rather than employing loigic or any facts to bolster your postition.

No, I'm not. You accused someone of a 'thinly veiled personal attack' based upon their rejection of the OP's proposition. Now I simply used your own logic to suggest that the OP was similarly guilty of thinly veiled personal attacks on those responsible for bringing us the images and eyewitness accounts, given that he/she has rejected their authenticity. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Sorry, but the evidence makes it very clear, that the media put us all on but good.

The evidence does not make it at all clear... yet. A number of sceptical contributors have invited the OP and others who support a similar position to provide better quality/source material for analysis. There is nothing conclusinve in the material that has been posted thus far. That doesn't mean to say that some of it, upon further examination, won't warrant scrutiny, but we ain't there yet. Furthermore, evidence of TV fakey does not automatically prove the no-plane theory. That is an unreasonable leap of logic and because of this, the two issues should be kept seperate.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Place your outrage where it really belongs, and that is upon those who use the media as a weapon, .... against all of us daily.

I am as keen to uncover any wrongdoing as the next person, but I am not going to allow myself to become wedded to a theory that, at this stage, is commanding attention not because its merit has been demonstrated but because those pushing it are extraodinarily determined.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
To say we dare not question the LIES fed to us, "less we offend somebody", is just absolutely ridiculous.

Similarly, to dare say that we not question the OP and his/her (or you) theories 'lest we offend' him/her is absolutely ridiculous.

ETA: tidy up

[edit on 8-6-2007 by coughymachine]

Totally agree with your post coughymachine.

When people are posting misperceptions, is that denyimg ignorance? to continuously allow people to post proven lies feels real annoying to me. People are taking advantage of this site and the Kudos gained from multiple posting in a thread... They are purposefully using the great features of ATS against ourselves... Why are they here? i dont know any more, but at the best it is bad disinformation.

Is this going to be the norm for ATS?

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Fair enough. Let me ask you a fair question though.

How many times, have you admonished others here in this thread, such as those using terms like "no planers" and even far worse ?

Well, there are many threads in which I have said people should stop with invented words like no planers and truthers etc etc.

These insults don't accomplish much except to troll and ignite flame wars.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
and so why do you allow yourself to be swayed by her claim?

This is a silly argument, not even worthy of a "straw man" moniker. There is a vast mountain of evidence that spans the spectrum from amateur photos to the stories of rescue workers that corroborate the notion that large commercial airliners impacted the World Trade Center.

This is not "defending the perps".

This is not "being a shill".

This is reality.

Holding firm the idea that aircraft struck the buildings does not automatically mean I, or those who think like me, believe those aircraft were controlled by terrorists.

Holding firm the idea that aircraft struck the buildings does not automatically mean I, or those who think like me, believe the official government reports.

Holding firm the idea that aircraft struck the buildings does not automatically mean I, or those who think like me, desire conspiracy speculation to stop.

piacenza

Here I will explain that thing to you the best I can. Pretend your in a helicopter and your filming. You have 2 things moving. Your camera, and the movement of the helicopter.

The helicopter's tail can also move 1 way with the front moving another and then of course your camera can move in another way! So there is a lot of movement going on.

Now if you set up a bookshelf in your house and in back of your bookshelf you put something to it similar to the bridge in the video.

Then you move left but at the same time you ROTATE right keeping your eyes toward the bookshelf you will see the back object change perspective.

Now at this point you might ask a question such as,

"wouldn't the foreground object move as well"?

Two things here:

Don't forget rotation but also there appears to be a ZOOM going on there.
Look at the shots again, do you notice the Bridge is Zoomed? It actually isn't the zoom but the type of LENSE that they are using, The foreground is normal but the background is larger. That would enhance what I am talking about and create the illusion of the foreground moving less.

Now, if you want I can show you a place you can go and speak to people who know a lot about this. They happen to be MAGICIANS who work with Illusions, but also they are familiar with Camera effects and deceptive angles.

Some of them know Criss Angel I will send you a u2u message. They might be the perfect people to talk to on things like this.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

I imagine that you don't don't just blindly accept the claims, of the many thousands of those who swear they have been aboard alien space ships and met the "lizard people", and so why do you allow yourself to be swayed by her claim?

Yes,I do believe Crackeurs post,with utmost certainty.Wanna know why?Because Crackeur is a mod. here at ATS and has been a member here for a long time .And that tells me that Crackeur is fully aware of the rules here at ATS,and posting false statements knowingly could mean the ban hammer.So I know WITH ALL MY HEART that planes hit them towers that day based on the trust of a fellow member at ATS.

I think what we have here is just an ill-informed theorist that can't keep up with their own theory. Why all the reevaluation done on their part? Why don't you present clear and precise evidence to back up your claims from the get-go? Why must we, the ATS users, have to pick up your slack?

Originally posted by piacenza

How do you know this is original footage? The video could have been manipulated by disinfo agents or by hoaxers so as to contain obvious anomalies. This is the trouble with fake video theorists. They always (naively) assume their clips are original footage, when in reality they may have been duped by the hoaxed videos they find and think are genuine. As they cannot establish the provenance of their clips, all their claims amount to is discovery of edited videos - as if no one but the 9/11 perps would ever fake videos for the internet!

This is exaclty where I would like to go. I would like for more people opinion on this footage. So are you saying that when I show you the original will you believe CGI was used? YES OR NO?
[edit on 8-6-2007 by piacenza]

Yes, if I agree that the imagery is truly anomalous. I have no other choice, as I am only interested in the truth about 9/11.



[edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Is this seriously going to be the topic...
We could prove conclusively in a court of law that those towers were hit by Planes.
Statements otherwise are just damn right lies!! disinforming others that maybe even bite on this tainted hook. I am seriously against these type of post at this level. They could influence new members. When lies are established, are we not as much to blame if we let it carry on and influence others in a negative way???
This for me could be the difference between this site being a serious weapon of study and truth, or possibly a tool of the lunatic fringe.
I know which one i wont stick around for.

Natasha_Thompson

Let me begin this by asking you this question.


Person "A" lives in another country other then the States.
Person "A" does not know one person involved in 9/11.


Now, can person "A" being where they are make a LOGICAL inference that 9/11 actually happened?

Now if you accept that person "A" can make this logical inference. May I ask you upon what exactly can they make this inference?

thnks.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

This thread is no longer about the topic and the evidence presented in the thread.

It's about making condescending and arrogant remarks and stabs at each other.

The truth will never be found if people can't stop associating people with the presented theories.

Talisman you might actually be right about the moving bridge and I might be wrong, I am 70/30 on the issue. The video is original by the way.
There I said it. About the nose cone instead I am having a very hard time understanding it if you could shed some light I would appreciate.