Please allow 911 truth .....PLEASE!!!!!

Ok first- My opinion on this matter means nothing as no-one here knows me at all. Briefly I will say that I believe that all the facts about 9-11 were definately, and still have not ever been brought into light. I will also say boldly, that I also belive 9-11 was an inside job. Some may call me a "thruther" but I've never gone along with the "no-plane" theory. I can look at this objectively as a "truther" so to speak myself. I really did not like this thread at first, BUT then I saw a couple arguments from two "truthers" (which is rare) So I took it upon myself to analyize both arguments. I was also interested in the videos posted by videoworldwide.


First I viewed all of your videos videoworldwide, and thank you! I applaud willingness to post so many videos! I did not expect to be impressed, but I *was* and that was a shock. I had seen some of those videos in the past. Some of them were pure speculation and particularly did not enjoy the ones that included "reactions" by said views as they were passed off as mere actors. More specifically the one with the girl screaming. Everyone is different and we all react differently, no-one has the right to judge based on pure reaction alone.

However, the ones that really impressed me were the CGI videos. Showing that 9-11 could all be CGI. I've always HATED CGI "debunkers" Methods by only assuming it's CGI without any proof. *Most* of them (said CGI debunkers involving ufos etc) cannot show any clips that produce anything that resembles their argument as a means of "debunking" the "truth". 2 different people have stepped up to the plate in an impressive fashion to show that, it's "possible" that the *msn* have completely fooled us all by EXAMPLES. Those two videos are these:

www.youtube.com...

and

www.youtube.com...

I was also REALLY impressed by this one which still has me stumped because unless the maker of the video cgi-ed it him/herself the copy of the smoke was incredible and quite worth the watch. The video I refer to is this one:

www.youtube.com...


So, I see your point videoworldwide! Perhaps we need to focus more on this.


Now to move on I also see _bonez_ point of view. The video posted here:

www.youtube.com...

clearly indicated to me at least, there is a group at work, who tend to add to personal attacks. This is not helpful in any case trying to find "the truth." I will add, that the initial tone of this thread has been nothing more than that *exact* tone from both parties. I have to be honest by stating that I think videoworldwide almost intentionally picked a fight here. This kind of bickering does not help the cause at hand.

Also I have to note that in _bones_ video posted here:

video.google.com...

There are some good examples proving that the "fade-in" effect does not help the "no-plane" theory. It also seems biased as to dis-credit a lot of potention for real *truth-seekers*


All in all, a lot of good points have been raised. What I have seen here is two people on the same side of the fence but certain technicalities have led to a separation of truth. To continue any such debate regarding 9-11, it is imperative that both parties remain objective and willing to provide INPUT, not personal blows etc to get to the bottom of things.

Perhaps if we were all just willing to present said evidence without the un-wanted garbage in the form of arguing/personal attacks/opinions, we could have a much better result in terms of finding "truth". Thanks for the thread!


*edit to add*

I want to point out that CGI debunkers always have a case, and most the time they cannot clearly re-produce what they claim to be GCI, which is why in fact I was impressed by a few of videoworldwide's links.

Here is an example of this claim. A recent UFO video in an attempt to be debunked by "Necati" tho I greatly respect his/her efforts, it is not quite what we saw in the above mentioned videos.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 7-8-2009 by Wookiep]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Wookiep]

Still going through alllll your youtubes, VideoWW, taking notes, which of course, leads me off onto side investigations, as much of the claims presented seem unsupported. Sometimes I find things that support the claims, but most times, they are unaddressed.

Gotta get some work done, but will type out my impressions later today(I have seven pages of handwritten notes so far, and not but 3/4 of the way through your vids).

Originally posted by impressme

Oh, I am so sorry Dave I thought it was to exchange insults and disinformation.
Dave when are we really going to do a real debate where one exchanges sources, and links, to back up their facts? Because, you haven’t done that so far and that my friend is a FACT.

What do you mean, "when are we going to do a real debate"? That's what I'm trying to do. I keep asking you whether or not you really do believe a statement that YOU made, and after asking you SIX TIMES, you still can't give me a simple yes or no answer. It's obvious why I'd want to know- if you really and truly don't care what other people tell you, then the whole reason why you're on these debate forums is suspect, not to mention, that it'd be a gigantic waste of my time talking to you any further.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you chose your words undiplomatically and I'm trying to give you an opportunity to rephrase it. I'm doing this becuase I *do* care about what other people tell me.

No Dave you have to give your SOURCES! If you cant then you are NOT debating anything. Dave have you ever-debated anything in school? If not then you need to learn, because until you learn you are only rambling and no one is interested in rambling.

It's "put up or shut up" time. Just WHAT are you demanding that I provide a source for? I did give you sources, many times. The problem is that you don't want to look at them. I even gave you a link and the exact page number on the link, and you refused to even read it. I've done everything but mentally beam it out to you.

So who is refusing to engage in debate here, me or you?

Fist of all I was giving an OPINION! furthermore, this statement has nothing to do with this thread I wrote that months ago in another forum.

So what? It still came from you. Besides, it's perfectly fine that this is your opinion. Everyone has their opinions. It's the "I don't care what other people say" part that concerns me.

It is against ATS rules to post topics from other threads that have nothing to do with the OP thread.

...and since the moderators aren't deleting it, it's a de fact statement they agree with the reasons why I'm posting it- the type of overly zealous favoritism you're displaying is a key to understanding why self declared honest researchers of the events of 9/11 would indulge in censorship to stamp out opposing viewpoints, which definitely IS relevent to this thread. You forget I am not subject to your rules of debate. You and I are both subject to their rules of debate.

...and I will ask AGAIN: Just what have I ever posted that was a lie? Getting a straight answer from you on THAT is like trying to nail jam to the wall, as well.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You're starting to show the characteristics of a spammer. This forum doesn't like spammers. Please post evidence of no planes and stop spamming "there were no planes" BS. Put up or shut up. We're still waiting...

Just becuase Bonez and I disagree on some things, it doesn't mean we disagree on everything. Case in point- I fully agree with Bonez, here. It would be one thing if you claimed the planes were remote controlled aircraft, or even aircraft that were mocked up to resemble passenger aircraft. However, claiming that no aircraft hit the towers *at all* is being intellectually dishonest and only invites a non stop procession of circular logic and runaway speculation. What the heck did we all see, then? Holograms?

I must tell you that elevating the conspiracy scenario to outright science fiction does nothign to advance the discussion of the events of 9/11. If you're gonna go that route then you might as well claim the terror attack was commited by alien vampires...though I suppose it *would* explain why so many people were able to survive the fires. Wouldn't alien vampires be fireproof?

Whatever. "Put up or shut up" is about as crystal clear as the request gets.

We'll I guess, the supposed Truthers have to ignore the videos I posted.
God forbid they should watch them and comment on them.
Well, I rest my case. There were no Planes on 911 and the truthers like BoneZ have now stipulated that I am completely correct.

What's really funny, is that they asked, asked, and begged, for proof. Now that I have posted the proof, what happened, they disappeared! Poof! like a cloud of smoke, gone with the wind.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

reply to post by GoodOlDave

What do you mean, "when are we going to do a real debate"? That's what I'm trying to do. I keep asking you whether or not you really do believe a statement that YOU made, and after asking you SIX TIMES, you still can't give me a simple yes or no answer.

Dave, your question is irrelevant and has nothing to do with 911 you are playing a game.
Dave, I have ask you plenty of question and YOU refuse to answer them, why is that Dave?

Dave if you want to debate me about 911 you ask a question that you believe is true AND you must show a creditable sources to substantiate your claim. Opinions and assumptions are not aloud in a factual debate.

It's obvious why I'd want to know- if you really and truly don't care what other people tell you, then the whole reason why you're on these debate forums is suspect, not to mention, that it'd be a gigantic waste of my time talking to you any further.

Dave you are still playing your silly little game, are you scared? If you feel I am a waste of your time them put me on ignore and move along.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you chose your words undiplomatically and I'm trying to give you an opportunity to rephrase it. I'm doing this becuase I *do* care about what other people tell me.

I stand behind my comment and I am NOT going to change it, get it!

It's "put up or shut up" time. Just WHAT are you demanding that I provide a source for? I did give you sources, many times.

Ok Dave, time to put up! Show me your alledge sources that you claim you have shown?
Dave, you are doing your best to pick a fight, you’re not interested in debating 911.

...and I will ask AGAIN: Just what have I ever posted that was a lie? Getting a straight answer from you on THAT is like trying to nail jam to the wall, as well.

IF I have accuse you of lying, I meant it and you and I know what lie you have told so stop playing stupid! You just want to play tit for tat baby games that little children play in Romper room

Dave, lets start fresh, the topic on this forum is “Please allow 911 truth… Please!!!”
Dave, this is an open topic because of the title of this thread but let’s discuss the OP topic

Originally posted by videoworldwide
I ask with noble, and honorable admission, I do not know the truth about 911.....

Please ...PLEASE!!!!! ALLOW, truthful discussion......??? PLEASE!!!!!!

Let us admit we do not know whether or not september clues is correct... ... or not!!!???
Please let us admit we do not know what the absolute truth is....
But PLEASE!!! PLEASE!!!!! --- --- --- Allow the truth to come forward.....
Please ... PLEASE!!!!!!
Allow the truth to come out once and for all..........
I beg of you all.....please ask yourselves the important questions.......
What happened to the remains of the airplanes that could not have physically broken through the trade center columns? Where are they?

Also, how come there are at least a few different angles of approach for the airplanes in the various videos? That at least, proves there is some subordination with regards to the released video. There are numerous angular approaches.....
How can that be explained?
There are approaches from high on, low flying....across the channel.....every which way you could imagine, .....which one is correct?
Which one is real?
One of them must be real, and few of them must be fake....
Which one is real?
Isreal........??????
Is real ???
Is- Rael ???
Which one is IS-REAL????????
Several are fake!!!!!
Which one is IS-RA-El?
Then you will know which one is REAL?
IS-RA-EL is the false God.
There is only one real GOD. that is truth.

Let us admit we do not know whether or not september clues is correct... ... or not!!!???

The debate in on. Dave, do you agree with this OP question, or do you disagree if so please explain why and show your sources to support your facts, thank you.

We will not move on to the next question until we have debated this one first.
Dave, let be civilized and a little more respectful of one another and leave out the bickering.

reply to post by videoworldwide


Don't get your hopes up. Some of us have real lives outside of the internets. Count on a response shortly.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by videoworldwide

 

Don't get your hopes up. Some of us have real lives outside of the internets. Count on a response shortly.

I suppose it takes some time to consult your disinfo training manual, contact your higher ups, get new permissions to post new lies, then you have to construct a whole new fake reality, counter each video with confusion, find ways to distort true facts, make it appear I said things I didn't, twist simple logic into confused gibberish....

These things take time, so please take your time.

reply to post by videoworldwide


Well, that took literally HOURS to watch all those vids; most of them I've seen before. At best, you have evidence, and much of that driven by inference and hyperbole. I realize that this all took someone quite a bit of work, and from a production standpoint, I appreciate their efforts. I wouldn't, however step too far out on a limb of calling it "truth".

911 Amateur 1 -

So, it begins by focusing on Denin - a self-avowed motion graphics person. Then demonize him as a horrible person and then want to use his films as evidence that the primary video shot was faked? What??? It can't be both ways. the "moving building" sequence is interesting. On a 400% enlargement, the building appears to be exactly the same, no matter where it appears. Now did Denin create this? I can find neither of the sequences that is claimed are from established news sources.

Following that are a series of parralax views, complete with false perspective lines, just in case we can't see ourselves. Now, I don't excell as an investigator, but what I do excell in is abstract reasoning and spacial relationships. All but one of the perspectives are entirely plausible, IMO.

Then the video finishes by debunking Clark, when they've hinged on the authenticity of his videos? Intentionally confusing, I think.

911- AM. 2

Yep, I have to agree, the plane folding into the building, or perhaps melting would be a better word -- it IS miraculous-like. Have you watched other crash/explosion video? It often defys explanation. Note: So far, the many different angles of the second strike agree with each other as far as angle, direction, the way the plane sliced into the building, the side explosions.

The "painted-in tear"? Look at 6:01 - 6:17..... the "gash" moves. I think there's likely another explanation for this --- possibly part of the darkness is a shadow of the smoke. The sun is to the left of the explosion where the plane strikes.

911- AMA. 3
About here, the feature focused on Connie Chung and the distinction between "jet" and "plane", trying to infer that Connie [who is obviously in on the whole conspiracy] is trying to supplant the word "plane" for "jet", which the witness reports. Is the distinction important? To me, this is reaaaaly reaching. Jet. Plane. Jet Plane. Jet Airplane. Sounds nothing like missile.

Oh, man. Simon goes a tweak adrift with the "iris recognition concealment", huh? whoof! This is for a purpose though, I think. I think it's meant to get us to accept that when a video is zoomed in, the pixilization is really a "cover-up effect". This pops up again and again later, where a frame is frozen, zoomed in, and then we are told what the pixilization really means.

The reflection in what is called a car window (I'm not completely certain) is interesting, I'll give you that. Not that it's upside-down -- that should be the case if the reflective surface is convex. It's interesting because of the perspective that the light from the plane strike would have to have reflected off something behind or to the side of the photographer and then onto the surface. I'm uncertain that is a car window, as it appears to have a fold or angle in the middle of it, and I've never seen that.

At 6:45 -- A slo-mo big deal is made out of the cameraman almost soiling himself, his reaction, and allowing the camera to move away from the target. So what?? Professionalism aside, I would've probably ran like hell.

Then, more zoom, telling us what the pixilized boxes mean and what we see. I watched this section several times, once without sound. It becomes uninteresting and very difficult to see anything wrong without someone telling us what we see. Try it. Everything changes.

Here, Simon tries to suggest that Tina Cart is hysterical because she saw something impossible. OR, could it be because she saw something merely horrifying?? I hate to rely on subjective experience, but I recall screams in our household very much like that, and we weren't seeing it in person, we were watching on TV.

reply to post by videoworldwide


911 Truth - 01

"This video is not available in your country due to copywright restrictions."

911 Truth - 02
Unavailable also.

911 Truth - Part 3

Bill Pitts of NIST agrees that it's the same in the 15 vids he's seen. "It's still amazing. It's miraculous." And it is.

Here we have a montage of damaged aircraft and crashes, showing over and over how easily they are damaged and how fragile they are. this hurts your case, IMO, as it supports how an exploding airplane might just appear to fold up into a building it struck. Good music during the crash montage; I used up about 1/2 hour at this point, trying to figure out the band.

Here's a possibly ironic segment, where the Project Manager for the construction of the towers assures us that the towers were overbuilt to withstand a large aircraft impact, even "multiple impacts of jetliners." hmmmm. Apparently not. He doesn't mention anything -- at least in this cherry-picked clip -- about any aging of the structure, rusting, any retrofitting of fireproofing, any of that. This is an interesting section, as the PM lets us know the Twin Towers were built with the potential of large plane impact in mind, and I don't doubt him.

Then we are told that it is virtually impossible for a 757 to exceed the speed of 503 mph. Not a chance. I didn't realize that there was any definative proof of how fast the plane was going, however even if there was..... so what? I understand that the angular momentum and stresses upon the frame, wings and body of the aircraft are not designed to withstand that, but is that the same as "impossible?"

See, by now, I was getting a bit pissy. I can see the spin being pushed, over and over. I'd rather things be just pointed out, and resent being fed hyperbole. My b.s filter is getting plugged at this point, and needs a backflushing.

911 T - part 4

ELO in the background; I'm temporarily happy.

Pilot Evidence at this point, and good points made. I was unable to verify the person making the points as a pilot, but by this time we're hearing Patsy Clyne in the background singing "Crazy", so that's good.

Overlay interlude ........... mind-numbing, followed by more unrelated plane crashes. So many lives lost. Sad.

John Lear interview series

John begins this interview using two anecdotal experiences to tell us that amazing holographic technology exists. I can't refute this in any way, other than to say that I've never seen any example of it. I used to drive the Freeway from Redwood City to S.F., past San Bruno. It would be an extremely frightening thing to even see and airplane that far away from the airport. SFO is in the area, but the airplanes don't fly low over the hills. That doesn't refute or debunk John's testimony in any way. I spent about an hour searching for examples or evidence of amazing holographic technology. Nothing I found that suggests it's even possible, let alone common.

Okay, at this point, I'm very confused. Either you believe in remote-controlled planes, or no planes/holograph, but they both can't be part of your "truth", or at least not in my mind. I remind myself to suppress preconceived notions, having watched one of Mr. Lear's interviews previously. John claims that they "dumped the wrong engine" [street - NYC]. Why would "they" do that? The same "they" that utilized holographs so amazing that they fool the entire world, including ground witnesses, but ooops, grabbed the wrong pre-burnt and pre-damaged wheel? pffffffffft. That's absurd.

J. Lear - Planes and Holograms

Right at the start, there's an entertaining moment when JL turns into a pixellated reptoid before my very eyes for 2 seconds!!!! OMG!!! lol. I don't know if it means anything....... John looks to the left an awful lot during the interview. He is interesting and engaging; I don't find this interview to be persuasive, though. There's no nuts and bolts, no measurable or verifiable evidence. We are expected to believe on the strength of John's character.

reply to post by videoworldwide


BTW, I keep using this post of yours to reply to, however, I'm not a truther, nor a debunker, nor a supporter of the OS. Just doing what I told you I would -- watch your vids and tell you what I think. I don't pretend to consider my impressions as a "debunking" of the vids. I also don't think they're very persuasive nor conclusive at ALL regarding the NPT.

Onward.

Jennifer Oberstein vid.

Jennifer obviously can barely hear herself with all the noise. She heard a boom and saw an explosion, and I hope she has been able to recover psychologically from the trauma of that day, and yet still honors the memory of all those lives lost. It must have been horrible.

unknown or unidentifed witness

He says that there was "no second plane. It was a bomb." Opinion noted. Next.

Gary Welz series.

No support or even a hint of the caller being an imposter. Then the vid goes on the smear Mr. Welz. Well, WTH, is it an imposter giving false testimony attributing it to Mr. Welz, or an attempt to discredit Gary? I don't think this video does your case any good. Perhaps I'm missing something.

In the "Actor's" video, Mr. Welz (or so he claims) refutes the call-in. Okay. I don't know what that proves. there were no shortage of people who witnessed the second strike.

__________________________

I think I'll leave my impressions of the next dozen vids until later. If you'd like to address any of these points or ideas, I'll respond. I have to say, I'm kind of disappointed. I expected there would be more "guts" to these videos, something that was verifiable.

I have no problem with the idea of a Shanksville shoot-down. I think it's possible, maybe even likely.