reply to post by lunarasparagus
Thank you lunarasparagus for posting this thread I was gathering data myself to post one but it all ties in here anyway so...
And so as a result of the first thing (see my animated avatar gif pic, upper left), that being close up evidence from the Naudet 'first strike' on the
North Tower clip, showing an inconsistent 'damage pattern' on the building face, proven not to be caused by that of a right wing from a or any
passenger airplane etc.
Well I just showed, conclusively I might add, that no plane impacted the North Tower.
Now exactly what does that mean?
Well for starters it means anyone saying one did or that it's the catalyst for the eventual collapse of the entire building is well, incorrect.
That's the first thing.
Well, maybe the second.
Actually the first thing is no plane impacted the North Tower.
The second thing has to do with the nonexistent 'plane impact' therefore having absolutely nothing to do with the subsequent collapse.
The third thing is there is some kind of plane image that Naudet seemed to 'catch' on his lucky intersection camera rotation but when we come to the
wing hole and see it wasn't made by a plane's wing, then we have to ask if the 'plane' in Naudet's film is REAL?
I am now claiming (based on my research) that it cannot possibly be. And in fact isn't.
Now here's where things get crazy cool and interesting - check it.
Recently I was reading an article by Jim Fetzer about the JFK assassination and the Zapruder film. Fetzer is a JFK assassination scholar as well as a
9/11 Truth Scholar it seems, anyway...
In the article Fetzer was trying to prove, or he dug up some proof that the Zapruder film was doctored, with things added, and that many frames had
been removed to tell a particular story that didn't really match what a number of eye witnesses claimed to have seen and reported.
Now I don't want to go into the whole JFK thing right now but I was thinking about the Zapruder film you see?
I was thinking that with JFK and that incident there was like one film and it was heavily edited/doctored. Where with 9/11 you had many many videos
and clips, especially of the second hit of Flight 175 approaching and then into the South Tower etc.
Recently Richard D. Hall produced a new updated and expanded second video to his previous "ball" one, where he mapped out something like 26 Flight 175
approach videos to show rather conclusively that despite the crazy angles that appear to exist on any single video's approach trajectory, that really,
when taken all together and mapped out against the known radar flight path and a 3D model of Manhattan, that there is only one object and it is
correct in placement or "congruent" across all 26 videos it appears in.
This is sort of significant I think, for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that I actually thought there was something in the sky myself
that day and that I also believed all the Flight 175 videos would end up proving to be "congruent".
And so, Hall was able to prove or show to my own personal satisfaction what I had personally suspected was true all along.
Now it's also significant, (Hall's work) in showing that a strange angle of Flight 175's trajectory on one video not matching on another video with a
wildly different seeming trajectory was really not the big problem someone could make it out to be. You follow?
That person being Simon Shack. Simon thinks and promotes, I gather, that the plane is 'video fakery', that the videos are fake, that the "nose-out"
sequence is a video overlay that went too far through the building etc. etc.
Hall shows these interpretations and cries of "video fakery" may be only in interpretation and may not be in actual fact.
And as it concerns the many second plane videos, especially the 26 Hall uses in his demonstration, I tend to agree and it is my current position that
as it concerns those videos that there is no 'video fakery' about them.
There are 26 clips Hall uses all shot by different people from vastly different places and vastly different angles.
Really I would EXPECT them to all match up when compared TO ONE ANOTHER.
Which brings me back to the Zapruder film. It was one film heavily doctored and edited, at least according to Jim Fetzer. That I'll just accept say
for a minute right?
Now look, the Zapruder film was ONE FILM so therefore there were really NO OTHER FILMS TO COMPARE IT TO. And so they played around with it before
releasing it. In the article Fetzer talks of it coming from the first guy Zapruder and then going off to different labs to get "processed", then LATER
it was 'released'.
Now I hope you can see where I'm going with this, right?
A SINGLE FILM, by ONE PERSON of a certain "incident" that has NO OTHER CLIPS from other people or other locations or other angles TO COMPARE IT TO,
that is released LATER.
to be cont...
edit on 3-6-2012 by NWOwned because: spelling