authfriend wrote:
> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> authfriend wrote:
>>
>>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But wait! There's more:
>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-
>>>>
> 3074561005024763960&hl=en
>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Very unconvincing. The first clip is a fake, staged
>>> by the filmmakers after the fact, with the Fox News
>>> logo and so on stripped in. There's nothing in the
>>> picture when the "witness" is on screen that pegs the
>>> clip to shortly after the buildings' collapse.
>>>
>>>
>> I'll look into that being a video editor for some time.
>> It has the Oakland FOX news stadio KTVU at the beginning.
>> That's a lot of work just for that.
>>
>
> But the first clip sets the whole thing up. The guy
> is so obviously fake, if you fall for its being a real
> clip of a plant, you're primed to be suspicious of the
> other two. That clip is key.
>
> Did you notice that the cutaways to the towers don't
> have the Fox logo and chyron?
>
>
There is nothing wrong with the authors using a cutaway that was not
part of the broadcast to show what the guy was talking about. That
doesn't prove anything to your thesis that it is a fake.
Nice theory but I wouldn't want to drink water from it. :)
>>> The filmmakers then use the obvious phoniness of the
>>> guy's spiel ("Who talks like that?") to assert that
>>> he was a plant--which is correct, but he was *their*
>>> plant.
>>>
>>> Very clever, but no cigar.
>>>
>>> Having set that up as sinister, they follow with two
>>> perfectly plausible clips of experts bloviating, which,
>>> of course, is what experts do. The filmmakers' comments
>>> attempt to portray the experts as sinister, but they
>>> don't have much to work with.
>>>
>>> And the filmmakers assure us these experts were on the
>>> air less than an hour after the attacks, but given their
>>> fakery with the first clip, I have no reason to trust
>>> their version of the timing on the next two; they could
>>> easily have faked the time bug on the MSNBC clip, and the
>>> ABC clip doesn't have one.)
>>>
>>> Furthermore, if all these guys were government plants,
>>> how come they could only find three (actually only
>>> two) of them? Why weren't there plants on CNN, NBC,
>>> CBS as well?
>>>
>>>
>> Dan Rather is in one of the clips so that would have been CBS.
>>
>
> Yes, that's CBS, my mistake. I had thought it was ABC.
>
> But I'm not saying the second and third clips are
> necessarily fake. There's just no reason to think the
> guys talking are plants. You've been *set up* to think
> they are, just like the first guy. And of course you
> never see either Rather or the expert. Same with the
> third clip.
>
>
>> Another was Brian Williams on NBC.
>>
>
> It was MSNBC using a feed from WNBC in New York City.
> But the speaker wasn't Brian Williams, sorry. That
> isn't his voice (and of course you never see him, and
> he isn't identified at all). They could have used
> audio from a later time; there's nothing to connect
> it with the video.
>
> That they didn't have clips for ABC or CNN is very
> telling.
>
>
>> Pay attention. Apparently a lot of folks
>> made tapes that day as they did during other catastrophic events.
>> Some people are just news junkies when things like this happen and
>> make archives.
>>
>
> Of course. All the conspiracy videos I've seen use
> clips from the networks and cable.
>
>
In fact many of the reports speak of it looking like a demolition.
>>> Gonna have to do better than that. You're awfully
>>> gullible, Barry.
>>>
>>>
>> I never said these are the "truth" but posted them as
>> something more "to think about" which is what the film
>> makers said too.
>>
>
> Fine, but they're using fake examples of what they
> want you "to think about." That's the sort of thing
> purveyors of *disinformation* would do.
>
But again you have no proof they are fake. You are just proposing it.
I am not saying anything either way but posted it as a video of interest.
If this was an "inside job" they would have a predicted what news
coverage would happen and plant ops in the field just for that. That's
a common tactical strategy.
> I don't know whether these guys are disinformation
> agents or just hoaxters having fun, or what, but
> that video doesn't give any credibility to the
> conspiracy theories, it *detracts* from their
> credibility.
>
>
>> I want to maintain an open mind on the issue
>>
>
> Don't let your mind be so open your brains fall out!
>
>
Gee what a statement from someone who fancies themselves an intellectual.
>> and not buy the government's. I never have
>> bought much of their stuff anyway even as a kid. I was
>> taught that they lie.
>>
>
> Of course they lie. But that doesn't mean *everything*
> they say is a lie. In this case, there's no really
> good evidence they were lying about what happened on
> 9/11, at least about the main events. It just doesn't
> hold up under examination.
>
>
>
And I never said they lie all the time did I? Even if it happened the
way they said there would still be a fair amount of cover-up because
government agencies screwed up. Why weren't fighters on those planes
right away? They sure had no problem when that golf pro's jet lost
oxygen. Do you really believe that guys who could barely fly a single
wing private aircraft could fly a passenger jet? Have you ever piloted
a small plane? There is plenty to keep you busy just with that. Look
at all the stuff you have to know to fly a passenger jet like a 727.
No, I'll continue to maintain it was an inside job. I have seen too
much evidence to support that thesis and too many people to profit
from. Think of the timeline: once the Soviet Union fell and the Cold
War was over the war profiteers were in financial problems. They needed
a new "communism" and Islam fit their bill, never mind that just like
Christianity 85% of Muslims probably could care less about shoving their
religion down someone else's throat and many probably hadn't even bowed
to Mecca in years (or even in their life). I was also told by a friend
who was trying to sell her Indian grocery to some Afghanis that the deal
wouldn't go through because being Muslim they wouldn't be able to get
the financing. Why? Because Muslims don't believe in credit and would
not try to get a loan from a bank to buy the business. Boy, with an
attitude like that it is easy to see why the Banksters wouldn't like
Muslims.
