Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Just like you will never have evidence or proof that it is a shadow of a 757 I will never have evidence to prove it was added so why are we sitting here making this a focus of conversation as if it is even remotely relevant to 9/11 justice since the evidence is invalid anyway?
This is the crux of it. I don't want to argue about whether the video is manipulated (in the inserted shadow sense).
1)Your case for video manipulation is compelling but not proven
2) even if the overall screen was re-arranged and views removed, this is not proof anything was altered within the camera views.
3) Neither would the overall screen left as-is proof that nothing was altered within the camera views present.
4) All alteration questions must therefore be kept open, and the evidence looked at in its proper ambiguous context, not dismissed. It's either
a) evidence of the plane
b) evidence of fakery to that effect, or
c) something else.
So far a has not been disproven, neither has b, and c has not been argued effectively yet.
EVEN IF they did not have to manipulate the data (hypothetically speaking) to remove the extremely relevant and critical view in question the fact that they withheld this view implicates the suspect in a cover-up.
This is a fact.
If you are scrutinizing data in an investigation to determine if the official story is fraud or not it makes no sense to accept this data as valid AT ALL.
There is no escaping this logic.
If you are merely looking at stuff for fun without scrutinizing the official story you are not conducting an investigation at all and are merely spinning your wheels with no purpose or direction.
No legitimate investigator would accept data controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's innocence.
It is impossible for us to prove what was manipulated in that video.
This only serves to deflect from the real issue and that is EVIDENCE TAMPERING which is a federal offense and directly implicates the suspect in a cover-up.
The real issue in this thread is that, considering as you say we can't prove what was (and wasn't) altered, or I'd add that ANYTHING was altered, we must look at what's there and see what that evidence lines up with. In this case, the 'official story.' Your 'real issue' serves here only to clarify this ambiguity - which is fair. It's not cause to ignore the evidence entirely.
Yes it is if you are really investigating the validity of the official story.
Of course some evidence will "line up" in a psychological deception of this nature with the suspect in question who has unlimited, power, authority, time, resources, technology, and access.
It's the evidence that doesn't line up that needs to be focused on.
Especially if the evidence directly implicates the suspect in a cover-up which we know that it does from first hand testimony of the citgo manager.
Why do you always refuse to accept evidence showing the official story is a lie?
But I do know they manipulated out those relevant views AS WELL AS manipulated out Robert Turcios since his story is backed up by his manager and all the other witnesses who were at the station so I have no doubt they would throw in a few flashes and shadows to add confusion.
Out? I thought he was just at the wrong pump from where he did the interview?
And again, why remove views that would only show what the witnesses saw? They were fooled, why not a crappy camera?
And is it proven the cameras in question were pointed towards an area that would've caught anything? I'd like to see some analysis on the probable views for each removed camera. I can find it but if you have one good link that'd be great.
Him and his cart were manipulated out completely.
The notion that he was at a different pump is disinfo from Farmer based on nothing.
No maintenance cart can be identified at the back pump.
He was at the front pump and he had his maintenance cart with him just as he said because his story is backed up by his manager AND the other citgo witnesses.
They released that video 5 days after we announced his account.
Plus the manager already TOLD US that it DID have a view of the Pentagon wall!
The camera was on the north side so naturally it would have caught the plane flying there if it had a view of the Pentagon wall.
The fact that you don't understand why they would not release this incriminating data despite the fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived into believing in an impact is pretty silly.
This is 100% invalid evidence in support of the official story and all of the witnesses are 100% valid evidence that prove the official story a lie.
See... 100% invalid, 100% valid, prove. This is not the language of reason, even if you were at more realistic figures like 80%. Unfortunately for you, you're closer to ass-backwards than correct in your math here.
No this IS reason and logic.
No honest investigator would accept evidence controlled and provided for solely by the suspect in support of the suspect's story.
Therefore the data is unequivocally 100% invalid within the context of this investigation.
If the view was removed, then it was covered up, I agree. What this proves is another story.
Depends in part on the views, I will look into this some more - the three locations, what they might've been set to point at, what Barbara said, all
evidence... Perhaps they removed all clues but one of the official path actually happening to cripple research like mine and leave mystery open. I
know you think there's no logic to that since any question are bad, but I just strongly disagree with you. They would have plenty reason to want
needless mystery. 
