Originally posted by CameronFox




Please stay on topic. The video that Sofia used was doctored. There is no denying it. This is one of the reasons why she is getting sued.

Thank you.

Thanks Cameron to bring a dishonest person to our attention. We will be careful about the information from this source.

NOW,

There is one more doctored video, it is SO OBVIOUSLY doctored that even a child can spot it. I am talking about the officially released video of Pentagon. With TIME ROLLING BACKWARDS & padestrian walking with INFINITE velocity. Maybe Craig et al can post that video here to refresh your memory.

My question to you Camron is, Craig et al have been trying to elicit your response regarding OFFICIALLY RELEASED DOCTORED VIDEO, but you always turned blind eye to that. But when an unknown person is caught doctoring video you are shouting from the roof top. I dont understand this behavior.

Why do you think it is ok for the govt to doctor the video?

Why do you not display similar enthusiasm, when it is pointed out you that officially released pentagon video is obviously doctored?

Don't you understand that Govt doctoring the video has FAR DARKER implications than a regular guy doing the same? Do u REALLY FOR REAL don't understand the implications Cameron?

Cameron,

Do you have an ALTERNATIVE explanation for official pentagon video with TIME ROLLING BACKWARDS & a person walking with INFINITE SPEED?

If you can prove that OFFICIALLY RELEASED video as NOT DOCTORED, then please share that with us.

If you agree that, OFFICIALLY RELEASED pentagon video is INDEED DOCTORED, please show us your posts where you showed even slightest enthusiasm in bringing that to people's attention.

you have only these two options. In fact you have a third option of just pretending to not have read this post, but I dont think you will exercise that option.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Can you link to a video where we can hear these in the towers?

"9/11 Eyewitness". The very video we're talking about in this thread.

I think you should be able to see the problem I'm going to have with those videos considering what this thread is about.

I was going to address a few other points in your last post, but I don't want to take the thread too far off topic. I should probably save those arguments for another thread.

I remember having posted on this subject before in these forums. Rick Siegal has been upset about the "tampering" with the audio track of a segment from his video for some time now.

Personally, I wonder why he is bothering with this, since the segment in question is really not the focus of some point being made at the time it is used. It seems more of a transitional use of the footage with the addition of a beefed up sound track from another source added to create an atmosphere which would encapsulate what was happening that day.

People who want to hear the original audio with detailed analysis of the sequence of detonations just have to go directly to Siegal's original video, which, by the way, is intended to show that the buildings were taken down as a result of a controlled demolition using explosives.

This situation is very unfortunate. I respect both parties in the dispute and wish some compromise could be worked out between them, maybe a disclaimer of some kind at the beginning of the disputed video would have avoided this situation. I don't think there was an intention to deceive people, just an unfortunate (and probably regretted) use of "cinematic license" to tell a story.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by neil_86
Do you have an ALTERNATIVE explanation for official pentagon video with TIME ROLLING BACKWARDS & a person walking with INFINITE SPEED?

If you can prove that OFFICIALLY RELEASED video as NOT DOCTORED, then please share that with us.

Could you be more specific about which official pentagon video? I have analysed both MPEG videos from the security checkpoint in an attempt to debunk SPreston's wild claims. I found nothing suspicious in either situation. I have relevant expertise in video analysis and security camera installation, although I am not formally qualified.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
People who want to hear the original audio with detailed analysis of the sequence of detonations just have to go directly to Siegal's original video, which, by the way, is intended to show that the buildings were taken down as a result of a controlled demolition using explosives.

Actually it wasn't. As far as I know that was not produced by Siegal, and was in fact just a licensed use of his footage. The person that produced that video then went on to "license" Sofia to use this footage, without any authorization to do so. The complaint filed gives more information on this.

I don't know of Rick's actual beliefs, but I have seen it mentioned that he is somewhat of an agnostic on the matter.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by exponent]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
People who want to hear the original audio with detailed analysis of the sequence of detonations just have to go directly to Siegal's original video, which, by the way, is intended to show that the buildings were taken down as a result of a controlled demolition using explosives.

Exactly. That sums up his footage in a nutshell.

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
It's just like the recent Professor Jones paper on thermite. All the GL's are crying for "peer-review" and "transparency". But tell them that the NIST, ASCE, FEMA reports were not "peer-reviewed" and/or "transparent" and they don't care.

You're not mentioning the obvious. Steven Jones is one person. Those groups that you mentioned consist of many people, so the reports were pretty much peer-reviewed while they were working on them.

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
You're not mentioning the obvious. Steven Jones is one person. Those groups that you mentioned consist of many people, so the reports were pretty much peer-reviewed while they were working on them.

Ah but you see, they're all working for NIST.

Well ok they're working for companies that are working for NIST.

So that makes them suspicious.

We need a new investigation.

But not by the government.

Because as reasoned above, anyone working for them is suspicious.

Someone else who has the power to compel people to testify and can punish deception.

Batman.

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
You're not mentioning the obvious. Steven Jones is one person. Those groups that you mentioned consist of many people, so the reports were pretty much peer-reviewed while they were working on them.

It doesn't matter if the NIST report was written by thousands of scientists. It still was not "peer-reviewed" by outside sources. period.

Also, there were 9 scientists. Not just Jones.

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
There sure were alot of mistakes in the recent WTC 7 report for it to be "peer-reviewed" thouroughly.

Really? The errata seems to be pretty sparse. Perhaps you could tell me how many mistakes there were and how many you expect?

Also. The very definition of "peer-review" excludes anyone working on said report being able to in-house "peer-review".

You are quoting the peer review process used for a typical journal submitted paper. Not for the results of years of study and tens of millions of investigation. Peer review is applied to this sort of publication by counter-publications. So far the best I am aware of from the truth movement is titled "14 points of agreement". Not a strong start.

"I wish there would be a peer-review of this (re the NIST report)" - Dr. Quintiere - Former NIST head scientist

Indeed, a man who thinks the WTC may have fallen from fire alone. Not the best person to quote in favour of the assumption NIST lied in saying damage and fire could bring down the WTC.

Originally posted by exponent
Really? The errata seems to be pretty sparse. Perhaps you could tell me how many mistakes there were and how many you expect?

I would expect zero had it been "peer-reviewed" before release to the public.

You are quoting the peer review process used for a typical journal submitted paper. Not for the results of years of study and tens of millions of investigation. Peer review is applied to this sort of publication by counter-publications. So far the best I am aware of from the truth movement is titled "14 points of agreement". Not a strong start.

You are completely wrong. Go ahead and think that a report as critical as the NIST report can go un-checked and in-house reviewed.

Also, can you agree that someone outside of NIST can't really "peer-review" NIST's work? Has NIST released all their data? Has NIST released all structural documentation?

So, saying that the "truth movement" has tried and failed to review NIST is correct but deceiving in the utmost.

"I wish there would be a peer-review of this (re the NIST report)" - Dr. Quintiere - Former NIST head scientist

Indeed, a man who thinks the WTC may have fallen from fire alone. Not the best person to quote in favour of the assumption NIST lied in saying damage and fire could bring down the WTC.

It goes to show that even one of their own questions them.


[edit on 6-6-2009 by Foxy Nutz]

Originally posted by Foxy Nutz
I would expect zero had it been "peer-reviewed" before release to the public.

Wow, that's a heck of a high standard! Unfortunately we do expect mistakes to occur in science, and that's just part of the nature of things. I assume you've read the NIST errata?

You are completely wrong. Go ahead and think that a report as critical as the NIST report can go un-checked and in-house reviewed.

Who should have reviewed the NIST report then? It took millions and millions of dollars, years of computing time and a lot of hard work by thousands of engineers. Who's going to pay to do that all again just in case they made mistakes that they haven't already corrected?

Also, can you agree that someone outside of NIST can't really "peer-review" NIST's work?

Not at all, NISTs work is as open as I expect and many people have already attempted to review it.

Has NIST released all their data? Has NIST released all structural documentation?

I am unaware of any request NIST has denied which they have the authority to grant. They released their SAP2000 models some time ago, and ae911truth made and were given the price for NISTs LS-DYNA models also. I don't know if they actually stumped up the cash but considering how much money ae911truth is trying to bring in I hope they did.

Have you requested anything from NIST? Was it denied?

It goes to show that even one of their own questions them.

Yes he does, such is the process of science. But even he, someone who questions the "official story" with excellent credentials, finds controlled demolition theories ludicrous. Do you think it was a good idea to quote him? Do you support his viewpoint or were you just trying to hold him up as an example of someone who disagrees with NIST, even though he disagrees with you completely and NIST slightly?

I don't think that the OP is going to be too happy about where the thread is going right now. I just made my peer-review comment to try to defend him after being called a hypocrite, but I'm sure he doesn't need me to do that for him. My bad. We should get back on topic now.