Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by NWOwned
I'm sure that what im about to ask has been discussed here before but honestly I never paid any attention to it.
Can you briefly explain to me what does it mean if the video if faked? Were there anything that flew into the building at all? Was it a plane just not
the one they say? Or was it missile?
Basically what I don't understand is what exactly does it change besides that it's a fake video? I can believe that it's fake since most of the
OS is fake I just don't get get why it matters because there is so much of other things that disproves the OS. Unless you're saying that there were
nothing flying into the buildings at all because if you are that would mean that all of the people who heard and saw planes with their own eyes and
ears were tripping on drugs or something like that.
edit on 10-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
Thanks for responding.
Well for starters to me it is Proof of Deception.
What do I mean by that and why is that important to me? I'll try and explain.
When I seen the towers come completely down on 9/11 I immediately thought 'something was up'. But what proof did I have? For anyone who thinks
something is up with 9/11 what proof do they really have?
I have found that sometimes even though you know or suspect something is up without a shred of evidence to back up that scenario you can become tired
and disillusioned over the whole thing and it can be frustrating. It can be frustrating to feel something is up in your mind and your bones but
everything shown and said about it seems to go lockstep against this.
Now a lot of people "KNOW" and will say something is up with 9/11. A lot of people say, "9/11 is an inside job!" And things like, "Just look at
building seven..." Or things like, "The laws of physics obviously took a vacation on 9/11."
All these things are nice to think and promote but it's the same problem I was having. Thinking it's a certain way and proving it is that way, well
there's a gap there. And the gap can affect your conviction. So personally I wanted to find one or two things that proved something was up with 9/11
(just as I had suspected) that would move me out of frustration and into a greater conviction.
To me it's like a thread to pull, like a break in a dam, like the movie Predator: "If it bleeds, we can kill it."
So Proof of Deception generally, globally, means to me like Grand Jury level strong inference of guilt.
Let's say the Naudet clip is faked or fraudulent. Why is it? Why would it be? Indeed, (as you ask) what does it mean?
Dave, for instance, supports the official story while claiming there really is no "official story" but everyone can agree I think that the 'story'
is that a Boeing 767 went headfirst into the North Tower, that's the generally accepted tale etc. Further to that, the 'jet fuel' (and damage from
the 'plane') and fire acted on the tower structure and contents and eventually collapsed it to the ground. That's another part of the 'story'.
I say, "Wait a minute... Can you prove a plane went in there? Because I have evidence that shows one didn't." (The clip may be faked but what it
proves as it now is is that no 767 crashed in there. Check my other recent posts and reasoning to see if you agree.)
And that of course means no 'jet fuel' or damage from a 'plane'.
If the first bit of that story about flight 11 is true and if the Naudet clip shows what it has been promoted to actually show then why does it show
what it does? Why does what it shows not match the story we've been sold?
I made the comment in another post that I think it's great what the Naudet clip shows doesn't fit the "official story" because it's a
semi-official video from the day, used to promote and uphold the official tale. If it doesn't show what it should then that either means that a 767
didn't crash in there (which is what it actually shows - see my other recent posts) OR the Naudet clip is in some way fraudulent and 'faked'.
To me, EITHER WAY that Proves Deception.
And that's what I was really aiming for, proof of deception. In the Grand Jury strong inference of guilt kind of way.
It would be like, "Let's gather up all these 'witnesses' and show them what we found by closely examining the Naudet clip and see if any of them
might want to change their story any..." "Let's sit Naudet down and ask him why his little clip don't look like it should if a real 767 went in
there..." "Let's look at all the Naudet footage now because him and his brother were all over 9/11 and all his other 'work' now comes into
question..." "In fact, this little 'impossibility' throws ALL of 9/11 into question, every tiny miniscule bit..."
So I've upgraded myself you see, from a nagging suspicion of doubt about 9/11 to more like a "licence to doubt."